Sexual & reproductive healthcare : official journal of the Swedish Association of Midwives · 2026
Women's satisfaction and experiences with water birth compared with conventional birth.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hummel Elina, Nordin Maria, Safrani Natalie, Elfving Magdalena, Alton Matilda, Turkmen Sahruh
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare women's experience and satisfaction with water birth versus conventional birth.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 132 low-risk pregnant women in Västernorrland County, Sweden (Nov 2022-Apr 2025), including 75 water births and 57 conventional vaginal births. Eligibility required spontaneous or induced labour, singleton pregnancies in cephalic presentation, and Swedish language proficiency. Background variables (maternal age, BMI, parity, gestational age, education) were recorded. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were obtained from medical records, while satisfaction with care during birth was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) and childbirth experience was assessed using the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Group comparisons and clinically relevant differences were analyzed.
RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of the two groups did not differ significantly. Women in the water birth group reported higher total CEQ scores (14.7 vs. 14.1, P = 0.002), particularly in the domains of Own Capacity (3.25 vs. 2.88, P < 0.001) and Perceived Safety (3.83 vs. 3.67, P = 0.02). They also reported significantly higher VAS scores (10 vs. 9, P = 0.03). However, after adjusting for potential confounders, no significant associations were found between water birth and the CEQ domains or VAS scores. Additionally, there were no significant differences in adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes, including postpartum bleeding, perineal tears, Apgar scores, cord blood gas analyses, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions.
CONCLUSIONS: Water birth showed higher satisfaction and experience scores than conventional birth, though not directly attributable to the method. Similar clinical outcomes suggest it is a safe alternative for appropriately selected low-risk women.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 132 low-risk pregnant women in Västernorrland County, Sweden (Nov 2022-Apr 2025), including 75 water births and 57 conventional vaginal births. Eligibility required spontaneous or induced labour, singleton pregnancies in cephalic presentation, and Swedish language proficiency. Background variables (maternal age, BMI, parity, gestational age, education) were recorded. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were obtained from medical records, while satisfaction with care during birth was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) and childbirth experience was assessed using the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Group comparisons and clinically relevant differences were analyzed.
RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of the two groups did not differ significantly. Women in the water birth group reported higher total CEQ scores (14.7 vs. 14.1, P = 0.002), particularly in the domains of Own Capacity (3.25 vs. 2.88, P < 0.001) and Perceived Safety (3.83 vs. 3.67, P = 0.02). They also reported significantly higher VAS scores (10 vs. 9, P = 0.03). However, after adjusting for potential confounders, no significant associations were found between water birth and the CEQ domains or VAS scores. Additionally, there were no significant differences in adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes, including postpartum bleeding, perineal tears, Apgar scores, cord blood gas analyses, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions.
CONCLUSIONS: Water birth showed higher satisfaction and experience scores than conventional birth, though not directly attributable to the method. Similar clinical outcomes suggest it is a safe alternative for appropriately selected low-risk women.