Cargando…
Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review
AIMS: To identify and synthesize the evidence regarding the facilitators and barriers relating to birthing pool use from organizational and multi-professional perspectives. DESIGN: A systematic integrated mixed methods review was conducted. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMCARE, PROQUEST...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10548665/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37794365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-023-01690-0 |
_version_ | 1785115319119904768 |
---|---|
author | Cooper, Megan Madeley, Anna-Marie Burns, Ethel Feeley, Claire |
author_facet | Cooper, Megan Madeley, Anna-Marie Burns, Ethel Feeley, Claire |
author_sort | Cooper, Megan |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: To identify and synthesize the evidence regarding the facilitators and barriers relating to birthing pool use from organizational and multi-professional perspectives. DESIGN: A systematic integrated mixed methods review was conducted. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMCARE, PROQUEST and Web of Science databases were searched in April 2021, March 2022 and April 2024. We cross-referenced with Google Scholar and undertook reference list searches. REVIEW METHODS: Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to birthing pool use were mapped and integrated into descriptive statements further synthesized to develop overarching themes. RESULTS: Thirty seven articles (29 studies) were included—quantitative (12), qualitative (8), mixed methods (7), and audits (2), from 12 countries. These included the views of 9,082 multi-professionals (midwives, nurses, obstetricians, neonatologists, students, physicians, maternity support workers, doulas and childbirth educators). Additionally, 285 institutional policies or guidelines were included over 9 papers and 1 economic evaluation. Five themes were generated: The paradox of prescriptiveness, The experienced but elusive practitioner, Advocacy and tensions, Trust or Trepidation and It’s your choice, but only if it is a choice. These revealed when personal, contextual, and infrastructural factors were aligned and directed towards the support of birth pool use, birthing pool use was a genuine option. Conversely, the more barriers that women and midwives experienced, the less likely it was a viable option, reducing choice and access to safe analgesia. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrated a paradoxical reality of water immersion with each of the five themes detailing how the “swing” within these factors directly affected whether birthing pool use was facilitated or inhibited. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12978-023-01690-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10548665 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105486652023-10-05 Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review Cooper, Megan Madeley, Anna-Marie Burns, Ethel Feeley, Claire Reprod Health Review AIMS: To identify and synthesize the evidence regarding the facilitators and barriers relating to birthing pool use from organizational and multi-professional perspectives. DESIGN: A systematic integrated mixed methods review was conducted. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMCARE, PROQUEST and Web of Science databases were searched in April 2021, March 2022 and April 2024. We cross-referenced with Google Scholar and undertook reference list searches. REVIEW METHODS: Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to birthing pool use were mapped and integrated into descriptive statements further synthesized to develop overarching themes. RESULTS: Thirty seven articles (29 studies) were included—quantitative (12), qualitative (8), mixed methods (7), and audits (2), from 12 countries. These included the views of 9,082 multi-professionals (midwives, nurses, obstetricians, neonatologists, students, physicians, maternity support workers, doulas and childbirth educators). Additionally, 285 institutional policies or guidelines were included over 9 papers and 1 economic evaluation. Five themes were generated: The paradox of prescriptiveness, The experienced but elusive practitioner, Advocacy and tensions, Trust or Trepidation and It’s your choice, but only if it is a choice. These revealed when personal, contextual, and infrastructural factors were aligned and directed towards the support of birth pool use, birthing pool use was a genuine option. Conversely, the more barriers that women and midwives experienced, the less likely it was a viable option, reducing choice and access to safe analgesia. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrated a paradoxical reality of water immersion with each of the five themes detailing how the “swing” within these factors directly affected whether birthing pool use was facilitated or inhibited. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12978-023-01690-0. BioMed Central 2023-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10548665/ /pubmed/37794365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-023-01690-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Cooper, Megan Madeley, Anna-Marie Burns, Ethel Feeley, Claire Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title | Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title_full | Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title_fullStr | Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title_short | Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title_sort | understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10548665/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37794365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-023-01690-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT coopermegan understandingthebarriersandfacilitatorsrelatedtobirthingpoolusefromorganisationalandmultiprofessionalperspectivesamixedmethodssystematicreview AT madeleyannamarie understandingthebarriersandfacilitatorsrelatedtobirthingpoolusefromorganisationalandmultiprofessionalperspectivesamixedmethodssystematicreview AT burnsethel understandingthebarriersandfacilitatorsrelatedtobirthingpoolusefromorganisationalandmultiprofessionalperspectivesamixedmethodssystematicreview AT feeleyclaire understandingthebarriersandfacilitatorsrelatedtobirthingpoolusefromorganisationalandmultiprofessionalperspectivesamixedmethodssystematicreview |