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":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>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.</div><div>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’.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div><div>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’.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18495,"journal":{"name":"Midwifery","volume":"145 ","pages":"Article 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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613825000944","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

樱草花项目：什么是“生理出生”？对澳大利亚人口的看法的定量方法。

背景：可能需要重新审视世界卫生组织1997年对“生理分娩”的定义，以便更好地与澳大利亚目前的分娩和分娩做法保持一致，并更好地了解妇女及其护理提供者的观点。本研究探讨了产科医生、助产士、助产师、妇女和支持人员（在过去12个月内有分娩和分娩经验）是否对生理分娩有不同的认识，他们认为哪些干预措施与生理分娩一致，以及应该包括在“生理分娩”共识声明中的术语。方法：通过社交媒体平台（Facebook、X和LinkedIn）在线分享一份自我管理的、匿名的、68个字段的问卷。问卷包括视觉模拟量表、多项选择、李克特量表和开放文本项目。数据收集于2023年8月至11月。结果：733名参与者参与了调查。评估分娩进展的阴道检查等医疗干预被认为与生理性分娩一致，而持续的心脏造影和人工破膜被认为是“非生理性的”。助产师将生理分娩与“无干预”联系在一起的程度比其他任何群体都要高。产科医生认为分娩本身就有风险。受访者指出，出生的心理体验，以及诸如“自发发病”、“无/最小干预”和“自然分娩/出生”等术语应包括在“生理出生”的共识声明中。结论：对“生理性分娩”一词有多种理解，这意味着该术语缺乏清晰度。在护理人员和妇女如何看待分娩干预方面存在差异；这表明“生理出生”的共识声明适合澳大利亚的背景。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

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.