Aim: To consolidate healthcare professionals' insights about waterbirths and water immersion during labour.
Design: Mixed studies review.
Data sources: Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception dates till June 2023: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and Pluye and Hong's mixed studies review framework guided this review. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized using the convergent qualitative synthesis method, and results were thematically analysed using Braun and Clarke's framework.
Results: Three main themes were identified from the 22 included studies: (1) believing in waterbirths, (2) opposing forces and (3) plotting the course ahead.
Conclusion: Healthcare professionals reported different views about waterbirths and water immersion practices; midwives were most likely to support these practices, followed by nurses and lastly, few physicians supported them. Reasons for opposing waterbirths include insufficient training and support from colleagues as well as concerns about work efficiency, waterbirth safety and litigation issues.
Impact: The available evidence suggests the need to provide waterbirth training for healthcare professionals, equip healthcare facilities with necessary waterbirth-related infrastructure and develop appropriate waterbirth policies/guidelines. Healthcare professionals could also consider providing antenatal waterbirth education to women and obtain women's feedback to improve current policies/guidelines. Future research should explore the views of different types of healthcare professionals from more diverse cultures.
Reporting method: The PRISMA guidelines.
No patient or public contribution: Systematic review.
Keywords: healthcare professional; insights; review; water immersion; waterbirth.
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.