Content Analysis of Water Birth Policies With Implications for Practice and Research

Abstract

ObjectiveTo identify areas of agreement and variation in clinical guidance documents (protocols, policies, or guidelines) that direct water birth care. DesignQualitative descriptive. SettingThe clinical guidance documents studied covered water birth in home and hospital settings. SampleThe sample included 22 water birth guidance documents in English from six countries. The documents were obtained by request and resulting snowball sampling. MeasurementsThe framework method was adapted as an analytic tool, and a structured matrix output was used to organize and support the method of qualitative content analysis using a general inductive approach. Areas of general agreement and variations in practice guidelines for water birth were identified. ResultsCriteria for a term, singleton, and cephalic presentation with reassuring maternal and fetal status were the most consistent for inclusion. The reliance on “low-risk” status was strongly present but without a uniform definition. A history of previous cesarean birth, body mass index, use of opioid pain medication, adequate labor progress, and vaginal bleeding were found to vary in directed care, and scarce supporting evidence was offered. Meconium-stained fluid variably excluded water birth in most documents, but this was not supported by evidence. The inconsistent findings from this study are cohesive in the evidence they provide for needed research in areas that affect access to water birth. The findings also provide nurses and birth providers with evidence-based guidelines for water birth care. ConclusionThere was variation across guidance documents, demonstrating that water immersion is a flexible intervention that can be implemented in different settings and locations while following individual facility protocols for processes for care. An identified area of concern comes from examples of overly restrictive policies for water birth based on opinion or perceived risk rather than evidence from research.