Experiences of women who have planned unassisted home births in high-resource countries: a qualitative systematic review

Author:

Macdonald Danielle12ORCID,Helwig Melissa34,Snelgrove-Clarke Erna12

Affiliation:

1. School of Nursing, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

2. Queen’s Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

3. W.K. Kellogg Health Sciences Library, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

4. Aligning Health Needs and Evidence for Transformative Change (AH-NET-C): A JBI Centre of Excellence, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this review was to identify, appraise, and synthesize the qualitative evidence about the experiences of women in high-resource countries who have planned unassisted home births. Introduction: Unassisted birth occurs when a woman chooses to give birth without the assistance of health care providers. These births are planned and usually occur in a woman’s home. It is difficult to know the prevalence of unassisted birth because it occurs at the margins of health care systems, making data difficult to collect. Based on its lack of visibility in society, we assume that unassisted birth is not a common birth choice. Women who choose planned unassisted birth may face stigma for their decision and their experience of birth, which challenge accepted norms. Synthesizing qualitative evidence about women’s experiences of planned unassisted birth can improve our understanding about women’s birthing values and provide important clues about aspects of birthing care that may be missing in mainstream birthing services. Inclusion criteria: Studies that explored the experiences of women who had planned unassisted home births without the support of health care providers in high-resource countries were included. Unassisted home births were defined as those that were planned not to be assisted by health care professionals. Study designs that focused on qualitative data were eligible for inclusion. Methods: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest), and Nursing and Allied Health Database (ProQuest) were searched in 2022. Studies published in English since the databases’ inception were considered for inclusion. A search of relevant websites for unpublished and gray literature was also undertaken in 2022. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of papers identified for inclusion. Qualitative research findings were extracted from papers that met the inclusion criteria and critical appraisal standard. Findings were extracted and categorized based on similarity of meaning. The categories were synthesized to create 2 synthesized findings, and the ConQual approach was used to grade the findings to establish confidence in the synthesized findings. Results: Six studies were included in the review. All the studies used interviews for data collection; other methods included surveys, email correspondence, posts on internet discussion boards and forums, and websites. The total sample size for interviews was 103 participants. Total survey sample size for surveys was 87 participants. Total sample size for email correspondence was 5. Internet data sources included more than 100,000 individual and forum posts and 127 birth stories. A total of 17 findings were extracted and grouped into 4 categories. The 4 categories were then synthesized into 2 synthesized findings: i) navigating tensions within self, and between self and systems, and ii) integrating and transcending physical experiences of birth. Conclusions: More research is needed to better understand the experiences of women who have planned unassisted births. Improving understanding and increasing the awareness of planned unassisted birth are necessary steps for promoting inclusive, relational, and person-centered birthing experiences for everyone. Reflection about the differences between planned unassisted births and mainstream births may support needed reorientations of perinatal services. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019125242 Supplemental digital content: A French-language version of the abstract of this review is available [http://links.lww.com/SRX/A9].

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

General Nursing

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3