The PRIMROSE Project: What is 'physiological birth'? A quantitative approach to the perceptions of the Australian population.

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q1 NURSING

Midwifery Pub Date : 2025-03-12 DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2025.104375

Brooke I Henshall, Heather A Grimes, Jennifer Davis, Christine E East

{"title":"The PRIMROSE Project: What is 'physiological birth'? A quantitative approach to the perceptions of the Australian population.","authors":"Brooke I Henshall, Heather A Grimes, Jennifer Davis, Christine E East","doi":"10.1016/j.midw.2025.104375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The definition of 'physiological birth' by the World Health Organization in 1997 may need to be revisited to better align with current practices in labour and birth in the Australian context, and to better understand the perspectives of women and their care providers. This study explored if obstetric doctors, midwives, doulas, women, and support people (with experience in labour and birth in the last 12 months) recognise physiological birth differently, which interventions they consider congruent with physiological birth, and terms that should be included in a consensus statement of 'physiological birth'.Methods: A self-administered, anonymous, 68-field questionnaire was developed and shared online via social media platforms (Facebook, X, and LinkedIn). The questionnaire included Visual Analogue Scales, multi-choice, Likert scale, and open-text items. Data were collected between August - November 2023.Results: 733 participants interacted with the survey. Medical intervention such as vaginal examination to assess labour progress, was considered congruent with physiological birth, whereas continuous cardiotocography and artificial rupture of membranes were considered to be 'non-physiological'. Doulas associated physiological birth with being 'intervention-free' more strongly than any other group. Obstetrics doctors viewed birth as inherently risky. Respondents indicated that the psychological experience of birth, and terms such as 'spontaneous onset', 'no/minimal intervention' and 'spontaneous delivery/birth' should be included in a consensus statement of 'physiological birth'.Conclusion: There are multiple understandings of the term 'physiological birth', implying that the term lacks clarity. There are disparities in how care providers and women view intervention in birth; suggesting a consensus statement of 'physiological birth' is appropriate for the Australian context.","PeriodicalId":18495,"journal":{"name":"Midwifery","volume":"145 ","pages":"104375"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2025.104375","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The definition of 'physiological birth' by the World Health Organization in 1997 may need to be revisited to better align with current practices in labour and birth in the Australian context, and to better understand the perspectives of women and their care providers. This study explored if obstetric doctors, midwives, doulas, women, and support people (with experience in labour and birth in the last 12 months) recognise physiological birth differently, which interventions they consider congruent with physiological birth, and terms that should be included in a consensus statement of 'physiological birth'.

Methods: A self-administered, anonymous, 68-field questionnaire was developed and shared online via social media platforms (Facebook, X, and LinkedIn). The questionnaire included Visual Analogue Scales, multi-choice, Likert scale, and open-text items. Data were collected between August - November 2023.

Results: 733 participants interacted with the survey. Medical intervention such as vaginal examination to assess labour progress, was considered congruent with physiological birth, whereas continuous cardiotocography and artificial rupture of membranes were considered to be 'non-physiological'. Doulas associated physiological birth with being 'intervention-free' more strongly than any other group. Obstetrics doctors viewed birth as inherently risky. Respondents indicated that the psychological experience of birth, and terms such as 'spontaneous onset', 'no/minimal intervention' and 'spontaneous delivery/birth' should be included in a consensus statement of 'physiological birth'.

Conclusion: There are multiple understandings of the term 'physiological birth', implying that the term lacks clarity. There are disparities in how care providers and women view intervention in birth; suggesting a consensus statement of 'physiological birth' is appropriate for the Australian context.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Midwifery 医学-护理

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

7.40%

发文量

221

审稿时长

13.4 weeks

期刊介绍： Midwifery publishes the latest peer reviewed international research to inform the safety, quality, outcomes and experiences of pregnancy, birth and maternity care for childbearing women, their babies and families. The journal’s publications support midwives and maternity care providers to explore and develop their knowledge, skills and attitudes informed by best available evidence. Midwifery provides an international, interdisciplinary forum for the publication, dissemination and discussion of advances in evidence, controversies and current research, and promotes continuing education through publication of systematic and other scholarly reviews and updates. Midwifery articles cover the cultural, clinical, psycho-social, sociological, epidemiological, education, managerial, workforce, organizational and technological areas of practice in preconception, maternal and infant care. The journal welcomes the highest quality scholarly research that employs rigorous methodology. Midwifery is a leading international journal in midwifery and maternal health with a current impact factor of 1.861 (© Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2016) and employs a double-blind peer review process.