Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835
Books209
All textbooksMedical textbooksHuman anatomyOrganisms & biodiversityOther sciences
Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›Establishing the safety of waterbirth for mothers and their babies: the POOL cohort study with nested qualitative component›References

Continue where you left off ()

GO BEYOND THE PAGEReading is just the beginning.

Turn scientific reading into research. Compare studies, examine evidence, and organize your findings in EvidenceHelix Workspace.

Explore Research Workspace →

Establishing the safety of waterbirth for mothers and their babies: the POOL cohort study with nested qualitative component · References

References

CC BY 4.0 · National Institute for Health and Care Research · approximately 9 min read

  1. Garland D. Waterbirth in the United Kingdom. Midwifery Today Int Midwife 2000:26.
  2. House of Commons Health Committee. Second Report on Maternity Services (Winterton Report). London: House of Commons; 1992.
  3. Alderdice F, Renfrew M, Marchant S, Ashurst H, Hughes P, Berridge G, Garcia J. Labour and birth in water in England and Wales. Br Med J 1995;310:837.7711622
  4. NPEU. Recorded Delivery: A National Survey of Women’s Experience of Maternity Care 2006. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2007.
  5. Redshaw M, Heikkila, K. Delivered with Care: A National Survey of Women’s Experience of Maternity Care 2010. Oxford: NPEU; 2010.
  6. Cluett ER, Nikodem VC, McCandlish RE, Burns EE. Immersion in water in pregnancy, labour and birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002:CD000111.
  7. Nikodem VC. Immersion in Water during Birth: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand; 1999.
  8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum Care: Care of Healthy Women and Their Babies during Childbirth. London: RCOG Press; 2007.
  9. Feeley C, Cooper M, Burns E. A systematic meta-thematic synthesis to examine the views and experiences of women following water immersion during labour and waterbirth. J Adv Nurs 2021;77:2942–56. 10.1111/jan.1472033464640
  10. Hollowell JPD, Rowe R, Linsell L, Hardy P, Stewart M, et al. The Birthplace national prospective cohort study: perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth. Birthplace in England research programme. Final report part 4. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme. 2011. URL: www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/birthplace/reports
  11. Walsh D, Spiby H, Grigg CP, Dodwell M, McCourt C, Culley L, et al. Mapping midwifery and obstetric units in England. Midwifery 2018;56:9–16. 10.1016/j.midw.2017.09.00929024869
  12. Care Quality Commission. Survey of Women’s Experiences of Maternity Care. Newcastle upon Tyne: Care Quality Commission; 2015.
  13. Birth Summary Tables, England and Wales. 2014 Live Births, Stillbirths, and the Intensity of Childbearing Measured by the Total Fertility Rate. London: Office for National Statistics; 2015.
  14. Redshaw M, Henderson J. Safely Delivered: A National Survey of Women’s Experience of Maternity Care 2014. Oxford: NPEU; 2015.
  15. Woodward J, Kelly SM. A pilot study for a randomised controlled trial of waterbirth versus land birth. Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;111:537–45.
  16. Allen J, Gao Y, Dahlen H, Reynolds M, Beckmann M, Cooper C, Kildea S. Is a randomized controlled trial of waterbirth possible? An Australian feasibility study. Birth 2022;49:697–708. 10.1111/birt.1263535373861
  17. Bovbjerg ML, Cheyney M, Caughey AB. Maternal and neonatal outcomes following waterbirth: a cohort study of 17 530 waterbirths and 17 530 propensity score-matched land births. Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2022;129:950–8. 10.1111/1471-0528.17009
  18. Burns EE, Boulton MG, Cluett E, Cornelius VR, Smith LA. Characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of women who used a birthing pool: a prospective observational study. Birth 2012;39:192–202.23281901
  19. Aughey H, Jardine J, Moitt N, Fearon K, Hawdon J, Pasupathy D, et al.; NMPA Project Team. Waterbirth: a national retrospective cohort study of factors associated with its use among women in England. BMC Pregnancy Childb 2021;21:256. 10.1186/s12884-021-03724-6
  20. Mammas IN, Thiagarajan P. Water aspiration syndrome at birth – report of two cases. J Matern–Fetal Neonatal Med 2009;22:365–7.19089769
  21. Parker PC, Boles RG. Pseudomonas otitis media and bacteremia following a water birth. Pediatrics 1997;99:653–4.
  22. Franzin L, Cabodi D, Scolfaro C, Gioannini P. Microbiological investigations on a nosocomial case of Legionella pneumophila pneumonia associated with water birth and review of neonatal cases. Infez Med 2004;12:69–75.15329532
  23. Deans AC, Steer PJ. Labour and birth in water. Temperature of pool is important. Br Med J 1995;311:390–1.
  24. NHS England. 2021/22 National Cost Collection Data. National Schedule of NHS Costs. 2023. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/costing-in-the-nhs/national-cost-collection/ (accessed 6 October 2023).
  25. Magro M. Five years of cerebral palsy claims. A thematic review of NHS Resolution data. NHS Resolution; 2017
  26. Vanderlaan J, Hall P. Systematic review of case reports of poor neonatal outcomes with water immersion during labor and birth. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2020;34:311–23. 10.1097/jpn.000000000000051533079805
  27. Cortes E, Basra R, Kelleher CJ. Waterbirth and pelvic floor injury: a retrospective study and postal survey using ICIQ modular long form questionnaires. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;155:27–30. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.11.01221185644
  28. Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, Mahmood TA, Adams EJ, Richmond DH, et al. Third- and fourth-degree perineal tears among primiparous women in England between 2000 and 2012: time trends and risk factors. Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;120:1516–25. 10.1111/1471-0528.12363
  29. Keighley MRB, Perston Y, Bradshaw E, Hayes J, Keighley DM, Webb S. The social, psychological, emotional morbidity and adjustment techniques for women with anal incontinence following Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury: use of a word picture to identify a hidden syndrome. BMC Pregnancy Childb 2016;16:275. 10.1186/s12884-016-1065-y
  30. Gurol-Urganci I, Bidwell P, Sevdalis N, Silverton L, Novis V, Freeman R, et al. Impact of a quality improvement project to reduce the rate of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a multicentre study with a stepped-wedge design. Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2021;128:584–92. 10.1111/1471-0528.16396
  31. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum Care: Care of Healthy Women and Their Babies During Childbirth. London: RCOG Press; 2023.
  32. Milton R, Sanders J, Barlow C, Brocklehurst P, Cannings-John R, Channon S, et al. Establishing the safety of waterbirth for mothers and babies: a cohort study with nested qualitative component: the protocol for the POOL Study. BMJ Open 2021;11:e040684. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040684
  33. Lugg-Widger F, Barlow C, Cannings-John R, Gale C, Houlding N, Milton R, et al. The practicalities of adapting UK maternity clinical information systems for observational research: Experiences of the POOL Study. Int J Popul Data Sci 2023;8. 10.23889/ijpds.v8i1.2072
  34. Cannings-John R, Gale C, Lugg-Widger FV, Milton R, Robling M, Sanders J. Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the POOL Study: establishing the safety of waterbirth for mothers and babies: a cohort study with nested qualitative component. BMJ Open 2021;11:e040684. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040684.
  35. NHS England. Digital Maturity Assessment of Maternity Services in England 2018. 2018. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/publication/maternity-dma-report-digital-maturity-assessment-of-maternity-services-in-england-2018/#:~:text=Maternity%20DMA%20Report%20%E2%80%93%20Digital%20Maturity%20Assessment%20of%20Maternity%20Services%20in%20England%202018,-Document%20first%20published&text=The%20Digital%20Maturity%20Assessment%20(DMA,a%20national%20and%20local%20level (accessed 7 August 2023).
  36. Gale CMI. The UK National Neonatal Research Database: using neonatal data for research, quality improvement and more. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 2016:101:216–8.26968617
  37. Battersby C, Statnikov Y, Santhakumaran S, Gray D, Modi N, Costeloe K, et al. The United Kingdom National Neonatal Research Database: a validation study. PLOS ONE 2018;13:e0201815.30114277
  38. NHS Digital. Appendix 1: Section 251 of the National Health Service Act 2006. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/data-access-request-service-dars/how-the-national-data-opt-out-affects-data-released-by-nhs-digital/national-data-opt-out-guidance-for-researchers/appendix-1-section-251-of-the-national-health-service-act-2006 (accessed 7 September 2023).
  39. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Addendum to Intrapartum Care: Care for Healthy Women and Babies. London: RCOG Press; 2017. p. 251.
  40. Mackenbach JP. In Townsend P, Phillimore P, Beattie A, editors. Health and Deprivation. Inequality and the North. London: Croom Helm Ltd; 1987. p. 221.
  41. Kaji AH, Lewis RJ. Noninferiority trials: is a new treatment almost as effective as another? JAMA 2015;313:2371–2. 10.1001/jama.2015.664526080342
  42. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. 10.1002/sim.406721225900
  43. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJW; CONSORT group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 2006;295:1152–60. 10.1001/jama.295.10.115216522836
  44. Milosevic S, Channon S, Hunter B, Nolan M, Hughes J, Barlow C, et al. Factors influencing the use of birth pools in the United Kingdom: perspectives of women, midwives and medical staff. Midwifery 2019;79:102554.31610360
  45. Milosevic S, Channon S, Hughes J, Hunter B, Nolan M, Milton R, Sanders J. Factors influencing water immersion during labour: qualitative case studies of six maternity units in the United Kingdom. BMC Pregnancy Childb 2020;20:1–14.
  46. Mercredi A. The Experiences and Perceptions of Childbirth Health Care Professionals in Alberta Hospitals. Master’s thesis. Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary; 2020.
  47. Cooper M, Warland J, McCutcheon H. Australian midwives views and experiences of practice and politics related to water immersion for labour and birth: a web based survey. Women Birth 2018;31:184–93.29037484
  48. Plint E, Davis D. Sink or swim: water immersion for labor and birth in a tertiary maternity unit in Australia. Int J Childb 2016;6:206–22.
  49. Ulfsdottir H, Saltvedt S, Georgsson S. Testing the waters – a cross-sectional survey of views about waterbirth among Swedish health professionals. Women Birth 2020;33:186–92.31054879
  50. Reyhan F, Sayiner FD. What do pregnant women in Turkey think about water birth? Int J Caring Sci 2019;12:305–12.
  51. Fair CD, Crawford A, Houpt B, Latham V. ‘After having a waterbirth, I feel like it’s the only way people should deliver babies’: the decision making process of women who plan a waterbirth. Midwifery 2020;82:102622.31951904
  52. Russell K. Struggling to get into the pool room? A critical discourse analysis of labor ward midwives’ experiences of water birth. Int J Childb 2011;1:52–60.
  53. Russell K. Changing the Culture on Labour Ward to Increase Midwives Promotion of Birthing Pools: An Action Research Study. PhD thesis. Nottingham, England, UK: University of Nottingham; 2016.
  54. Hodnett ED, Stremler R, Weston JA, McKeever P. Re‐conceptualizing the hospital labor room: the PLACE (pregnant and laboring in an ambient clinical environment) pilot trial. Birth 2009;36:159–66.19489810
  55. Manesh MJ, Kalati M, Hosseini F. Snoezelen room and childbirth outcome: a randomized clinical trial. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2015;17:e18373.
  56. Aburas R, Pati D, Casanova R, Adams NG. The influence of nature stimulus in enhancing the birth experience. HERD 2017;10:81–100.27694185
  57. Newnham EC, McKellar LV, Pincombe JI. Documenting risk: a comparison of policy and information pamphlets for using epidural or water in labour. Women Birth J Aust Coll Midwives 2015;28:221–7.
  58. Newnham E, McKellar L, Pincombe J. ‘It’s your body, but …’ Mixed messages in childbirth education: findings from a hospital ethnography. Midwifery 2017;55:53–9.28942214
  59. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum Care: Care of Healthy Women and Their Babies during Childbirth. London: RCOG Press; 2014. p. 839.
  60. Baxter L. What a difference a pool makes: making choice a reality. Br J Midwifery 2006;14:368–72.
  61. Antonakou A, Kostoglou E, Papoutsis D. Experiences of Greek women of water immersion during normal labour and birth. A qualitative study. Eur J Midwifery 2018;2:7.33537568
  62. Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Safer Childbirth: Minimum Standards for the Organisation and Delivery of Care in Labour. London: RCOG Press; 2007.
  63. NHS Digital. NHS Maternity Statistics, England – 2021–22, Method of Onset. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-maternity-statistics/2021-22/deliveries---time-series#method-of-onset (accessed 24 October 2023).
  64. Brigante L, Morelli A, Jokinen M, Plachcinski R, Rowe R. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on midwifery-led service provision in the United Kingdom in 2020–21: findings of three national surveys. Midwifery 2022;112:103390. 10.1016/j.midw.2022.10339035709677
  65. Garland D. Revisiting Waterbirth. An Attitude to Care. 3rd edn. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
  66. Lilley G, Burkett-st-Laurent D, Precious E, Bruynseels D, Kaye A, Sanders J, et al. Measurement of blood loss during postpartum haemorrhage. Int J Obstet Anesth 2015;24:8–14. 10.1016/j.ijoa.2014.07.00925433576
  67. Seed E, Kearney L, Weaver E, Ryan EG, Nugent R. A prospective cohort study comparing neonatal outcomes of waterbirth and land birth in an Australian tertiary maternity unit. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2023;63:59–65. 10.1111/ajo.1355535796252
  68. Albers L, Garcia J, Renfrew M, McCandlish R, Elbourne D. Distribution of genital tract trauma in childbirth and related postnatal pain. Birth 1999;26:11–7.10352050
  69. Papoutsis D, Antonakou A, Gornall A, Tzavara C. The incidence of and predictors for severe perineal trauma and intact perineum in women having a waterbirth in England: a hospital-based study. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2021;30:681–8. 10.1089/jwh.2019.824432907460
  70. Scamell M, Thornton J, Hales K, Renfew M, Dahlen H, Jowit M, et al. Impact of a quality improvement project to reduce the rate of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a multicentre study with a stepped-wedge design: OASI care bundle: OASI care bundle. Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2022;129:174–5. 10.1111/1471-0528.16885
  71. Edqvist M, Dahlen HG, Häggsgård C, Tern H, Ängeby K, Teleman P, et al. The effect of two midwives during the second stage of labour to reduce severe perineal trauma (Oneplus): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in Sweden. Lancet (London, England) 2022;399:1242–53. 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00188-X35303474
  72. Lai NM, Yap AQY, Ong HC, Wai SX, Yeo JHH, Koo CYE, et al. Use of composite outcomes in neonatal trials: an analysis of the cochrane reviews. Neonatology 2021;118:259–63. 10.1159/00051440233780936
  73. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Shoulder Dystocia. Greentop Guideline No. 42. London: RCOG Press; 2012.
  74. Rehal S, Morris TP, Fielding K, Carpenter JR, Phillips PPJ. Non-inferiority trials: are they inferior? A systematic review of reporting in major medical journals. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012594. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012594
  75. Office for National Statistics. Childbearing for Women Born in Different Years, England and Wales: 2020. ONS; 2021. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/bulletins/childbearingforwomenbornindifferentyearsenglandandwales/2020#:~:text=The%20standardised%20mean%20age%20of,in%202020%20was%2031%20years (accessed 24 October 2023).
  76. Office for National Statistics. Birth Characteristics in England and Wales: 2017. ONS. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthcharacteristicsinenglandandwales/2017#:~:text=In%20England%2C%202.1%25%20of%20women,3.1%25%20and%201.1%25%20respectively (accessed 24 October 2023).
  77. UK Standard for Public Involvement. Better Public Involvement for Better Health and Social Care Research. 2019. URL: www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/UK-standards-for-public-involvement-v6.pdf (accessed 11 May 2023).
  78. Cluett ER, Burns E, Cuthbert A. Immersion in water during labour and birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;5:CD000111. 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub4
  79. Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, Harron K, Moher D, Petersen I, et al.; the RECORD Working Committee. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLOS Med 2015;12:e1001885. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885
← Discussion and conclusionsAdditional information →

Attribution. Julia Sanders; Christian Barlow; Peter Brocklehurst; Rebecca Cannings-John; Susan Channon; Christopher Gale et al. (2026). Establishing the safety of waterbirth for mothers and their babies: the POOL cohort study with nested qualitative component. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Copyright © 2026 Sanders et al. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK620676. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • References

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support