The benefits of water for birth

There are many research studies demonstrating the benefits of water for labour and birth.

We have evidence from research involving hundreds of thousands of women and babies that using water for labour and birth is safe and leads to good outcomes.

Using water also brings advantages, including less need for other kinds of pain relief and increased maternal satisfaction.

But, as with many things that are beneficial for women and babies in systems of maternity care, practice doesn’t always follow evidence.

The need for good evidence

Some organisations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, do not recommend waterbirth. They sometimes cite anecdotal stories, hypothetical risks and issues that aren’t really problems. At the same time, they ignore large studies which show that waterbirth is safe and beneficial for women and babies.

This means that researchers need to keep doing more studies in order to demonstrate that woman-centred options are safe and effective.

Those who want to support the use of water for labour and birth need to have access to good evidence. This page summarises the evidence on waterbirth and includes many of the most important studies that have been published in the past decade.

The Oxford review

One of the most important studies is a comparative review and meta-analysis by Burns et al (2022). Researchers in Oxford, England examined intrapartum (in labour) interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and birth.

Their findings showed that the use of water during labour and birth has clear benefits.

Here are a few of the key details of the included studies:

“We included 36 studies in the review, (N=157 546 participants). Thirty-one studies were conducted in an obstetric unit setting (n=70 393), four studies were conducted in midwife led settings (n=61 385) and one study was a mixed setting (OU and homebirth) (n=25 768). Midwife led settings included planned home and freestanding midwifery unit (k=1), alongside midwifery units (k=1), planned homebirth (k=1), a freestanding midwifery unit and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1) and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1). For water immersion, 25 studies involved women who planned to have/had a waterbirth (n=151 742), seven involved water immersion for labour only (1901), three studies reported on water immersion during labour and waterbirth (n=3688) and one study was unclear about the timing of water immersion (n=215).” (Burns et al 2022).

The fact that this analysis included many studies which were carried out in hospital settings is really important. As lead author Ethel Burns points out (personal correspondence, 2022), “…this study has international transferability because obstetric units are the main places where women across most countries give birth.” We know that women who birth in hospital are often subject to unnecessary intervention and may experience more complications than those who birth in midwifery-led settings. As one of the other study authors wrote, “…water is a fantastic option to improve choice, experiences and outcomes in hospital settings.” (Claire Feeley, personal correspondence, 2022). 

The findings

The authors, “synthesised the evidence that compared the effect of water immersion during labour or waterbirth on intrapartum interventions and outcomes to standard care with no water immersion.” (Burns et al 2022).

They found that:

“Water immersion significantly reduced use of epidural, injected opioids, episiotomy, maternal pain and postpartum haemorrhage. There was an increase in maternal satisfaction and odds of an intact perineum with water immersion.

Waterbirth was associated with increased odds of cord avulsion*, although the absolute risk remained low (4.3 per 1000 vs 1.3 per 1000). There were no differences in any other identified neonatal outcomes.”

* Cord avulsion is where the umbilical cord tears or snaps. It is rare, though it does seem to happen slightly more often in water. The figures in this analysis tell us that one in 233 women who have a waterbirth will experience cord avulsion. By comparison, one in 769 women who give birth ‘on land’ experience it. (This is before the cord is clamped. Cord avulsion is more common when the birth of the placenta is medically managed, but as the baby’s end of the cord is already clamped, it’s not considered as much of a problem.) Recommendations exist to help prevent and manage cord avulsion in waterbirth. “As Sheila Kitzinger states, a cord avulsion is “not an emergency for a skilled midwife” because, as case studies show, the risk of neonatal morbidity is quite low when providers respond with prompt, appropriate management.” (Schafer 2014).

It’s of particular significance that this review found no difference in Apgar scores at 5 minutes. This study provides clear evidence that the use of water in labour and birth does not compromise babies. Obstetric statements relating to such theoretical concerns should be modified.

In summary, “This review endorses previous reviews showing clear benefits resulting from intrapartum water immersion for healthy women and their newborns.” (Burns et al 2022).

You can find out more about the research team and their related studies here.

The POOL study

Researchers in England compared the outcomes of women who just used the pool for labour, and got out to give birth, with those who stayed in the water to give birth.

“Study findings provide reassurance that birth in water, in the context of UK midwifery practice, is not associated with increased risks for mothers or their babies.” (Sanders et al 2024).

“Warm water immersion during labour provides women with analgesia and comfort. This cohort study aimed to establish among women using intrapartum water immersion analgesia, without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, whether waterbirth is as safe for them and their babies as leaving the water before birth.” (Sanders et al 2024).

The researchers looked at data from 26 UK NHS maternity services, and a total of 73 229 women without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, who used water during labour 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2022.

They found that the rates of the primary outcomes (which included OASI, fetal or netonatal mortality, a neonatal composite outcome, neonatal unit admission with respiratory support or administration of antibiotics within 48 hours of birth) were no higher among waterbirths compared with births out of water. (Sanders et al 2024).

More reassuring results

The authors of the POOL study conclude that:

“Among women using water immersion during labour, remaining in the pool and giving birth in water was not associated with an increase in the incidence of adverse primary maternal or neonatal outcomes.” (Sanders et al 2024).

“The finding that risks to mothers and their babies are not increased among births in water concur with other smaller studies, studies reporting outcomes of out of hospital births in the USA, and those with different comparative groups.” (Sanders et al 2024).

“Women considering or using water immersion during an uncomplicated labour should be informed that remaining in the water to give birth is not associated with increased risk to themselves or their baby, and they should be supported to make evidence-based individualised decisions on their care.” (Sanders et al 2024).

And a couple of worrying findings

A later paper from the POOL study highlights a sad trend, however.

Like many previous studies, it shows that water labour and birth are safe, but it highlights inequity.

Women who used water are more likely to be white, English-speaking, under 35, having their first baby, and resident in a more affluent area. This means that we need to look at issues of equity and access.

Another finding shows a concerning decline in the number of women who use water.

“Between 2016 and the last 12 months of data collection in 2021/2022 the proportions of women using water during labour reduced from 11.6% to 7.6% and water births decreased from 8.2% to 3.2%. Reductions in water use and waterbirths reduced over this time period across all groups examined.” (Sanders et al 2025).

“The finding of a reduction in water use and water births over the study period is primarily considered to have been influenced by increasing proportions of women experiencing induction of labour or elective caesarean section as respective rates in England increased between 2015 and 2022 from 27% to 33%, and from 14% to 23%.” (Sanders et al 2025)

“This reflects changes in UK maternity care over the study period including national policy on stillbirth reduction lowering thresholds to artificially end pregnancies at term, repercussions of investigations into maternity services in various locations in the UK following reports of clusters of avoidable perinatal deaths in midwifery and obstetric settings and sustained criticism and undermining of the credibility of midwifery care in the press and social media.” (Sanders et al 2025).

More research

This page also contains details of many of the studies that I have come across and shared over the past decade or so. I add new ones all the time, so keep scrolling down to see the most recent.

In case you have been told that you need to get out of the pool for the birth of your placenta, I have also written a blog post on The theoretical risk of water embolism.

But let’s look at those water labour and birth studies, which come from around the world.

England

An open access study published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth by the Birthplace in England team showed that, for women having their first babies, getting into water while in labour helps in all kinds of ways and across all settings.

Analysis of data from 16,577 women showed that water immersion reduced the transfer rate for women who planned to birth at home or in freestanding or alongside midwifery units.

Furthermore, the data collected from the women who planned to give birth in freestanding midwifery units showed that using water during labour also reduced the caesarean section rate and increased their chance of having a straightforward normal birth.

Some groups of women were more likely to use water than others, though.

The results showed that, although immersion in water for pain relief was popular, women under 25, women who were not fluent in understanding English, women living in more deprived areas and women who were single or unsupported by their partner were less likely to use water in labour.

Italy

A study of water immersion and waterbirth in Italian obstetric units by Henderson et al (2014) published in BMC found that,

“Overall, 95.6% of women using a birthing pool had a spontaneous vertex delivery, 63.9% of which occurred in water. Half of nulliparas and three quarters of multiparas delivered in water. Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were rare. There were two cases of umbilical cord snap with waterbirth.

Compared with controls, significantly more women who used a birthing pool adopted an upright birth position, had hands off delivery technique, and a physiological third stage. Significantly fewer nulliparas had an episiotomy, and more had a second degree perineal tear, with no evidence of a difference for extensive perineal tears.”  (Henderson et al 2014:1).

Sweden

A Swedish comparative study by Ulfsdottir et al (2017), found that women giving birth in water had a lower risk of second-degree perineal tears, shorter labours and significantly less interventions (including artificial rupture of membranes, internal CTG and augmentation with synthetic oxytocin).

There were no differences in Apgar scores or admissions to neonatal intensive care unit and the women reported a more positive birth experience.

Three of the babies in the waterbirth group were noted to have cord avulsion and, while none of them were admitted to special care or suffered any complications as a result, the study authors remind midwives to watch out for this problem, which can easily be solved by clamping the cord.

Portugal

Then we have The Waterbirth Project: São Bernardo Hospital experience (Camargo et al 2018). This quantitative observational study analysed the maternal and neonatal outcomes of 90 pregnant women who gave birth in water at São Bernardo Hospital in Portugal. In this study, being in water also reduced the time that the women were in labour.

Nearly a third of the women did not have vaginal examination and 57.8% either had no tears or just a first degree tear. The authors noted that the babies’ Apgar and Aqua Apgar (a specially modified Apgar score designed to be used for waterbirth) scores were excellent.

As Camargo et al (2018) conclude, “These safety outcomes, based on sound scientific evidence, should increasingly support and inform clinical decisions and increase the number of waterbirths in health facilities. The results of this study align with growing evidence that suggests waterbirth is a safe delivery option and therefore should be offered to women.”

New Zealand

In “Getting into the water: a prospective observational study of water immersion for labour and birth at a New Zealand District Health Board”, researchers “aimed to describe the maternal characteristics, intrapartum events, interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes of women who used water immersion during labour and birth at one New Zealand District Health Board (DHB).”

This study, like some others that have been carried out in different countries, particularly highlights the positive benefits of water in a hospital setting.

“The data revealed 84% of women who used water immersion for labour and birth across all three birth settings in this DHB had a spontaneous vaginal birth (Nulliparous 74.3%, Multiparous 95.7%).” The authors note that, “The New Zealand national average for spontaneous vaginal birth was reported to be 65.2% in 2014.”

“Water immersion for labour and birth is a positive intervention that benefits well women with uncomplicated pregnancies. This study shows that water immersion for labour and birth in a midwife-led unit with a community-based lead maternity care midwife results in excellent outcomes for women and infants. Water immersion for labour and birth also provides an essential option for women who have a desire to have a spontaneous vaginal birth.” (Maude & Kim 2020).

England

Expert researchers at Oxford Brookes University (Burns et al 2020) brought together research on childbirth, birth setting and the use of water immersion in labour and shared key points which highlighted the safety and benefits of the use of water for labour and birth, during and beyond the coronavirus pandemic.

Their points included that:

• Water immersion for healthy women is associated with a number of beneficial maternal outcomes with no known adverse risks to the neonate.
• COVID-19 is not a waterborne virus, therefore, the water environment dilutes respiratory droplet and faecal contamination potential.
• In the Coronavirus context, water immersion presents a lower risk of contamination risk for midwives compared with bed birth because it promotes the use of social distancing without interrupting normal midwifery care. Burns et al (2020)

The authors also noted that:

“The birthing pool environment presents a natural barrier between the woman and her midwife.

Supporting women in the water reduces droplet, aerosol and faecal contamination, presenting a low-risk transmission activity for the Coronavirus.

Water immersion for healthy women is associated with a number of beneficial maternal outcomes with no known adverse risks to the neonate.

For primiparous women, birthing in midwifery-led settings (AMU/FMU or home) water immersion reduces transfer rate with the greatest benefit seen at FMU.

Water immersion for labour and/or birth should be supported and encouraged as an effective method of analgesia.”

Burns E, Feeley C, Venderlaan J et al (2020). Coronavirus COVID-19: Supporting healthy pregnant women to safely give birth. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.

USA

In 2021, US researchers published another analysis of waterbirth outcomes.

This was a prospective observational study of 2077 low-risk pregnant women.

Some stayed on land the whole time, some laboured in water and got out to give birth and some laboured and birthed in water.

Again, this study showed that waterbirth is safe for babies. “In this cohort of low-risk pregnant women, births in water and on land were associated with similar rates of admission to the NICU.” (Lanier et al 2021).

England

A 2021 study looked at waterbirth safety and access. It was called “Waterbirth: a national retrospective cohort study of factors associated with its use among women in England.”

We know that the use of water for labour is very safe and beneficial. This research was undertaken because we don’t know quite so much about the outcomes and characteristics of the women who actually give birth in water.

So a retrospective (backwards-looking) cohort study was undertaken “to describe the proportion of births recorded as having occurred in water, the characteristics of women who experienced waterbirth and the odds of key maternal and neonatal complications associated with giving birth in water.” (Aughey et al 2021).

The authors looked at data from “46,088 low and intermediate risk singleton term spontaneous vaginal births in 35 NHS Trusts in England.” (Aughey et al 2021).

They found that waterbirth was more likely in older women up to the age of 40, and less common in women under 25, those of higher parity (by which we mean those who have had more babies already), or women with a higher than average BMI.

Waterbirth was also less likely in Black and Asian women and in those from areas of increased socioeconomic deprivation.

The study again evidences that waterbirth is safe. There was no association between waterbirth and specific adverse outcomes for either the mother or the baby.

But the fact that white women from higher socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to be recorded as giving birth in water is of concern, and the researchers conclude that “Maternity services should focus on ensuring equitable access to waterbirth.” (Aughey et al 2021).

USA

Bovbjerg et al (2021) carried out a large analysis of waterbirths. They looked at data from more than 17,500 water births and compared these with more than 17,500 births on land.

They found that:

“Waterbirth was associated with improved or no difference in outcomes for most measures, including neonatal death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.31–1.0), and maternal or neonatal hospitalisation in the first 6 weeks (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81–0.92 and aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–0.99, respectively). Increased morbidity in the waterbirth group was observed for two outcomes only: uterine infection (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05–1.48) (but not hospitalisation for infection) and umbilical cord avulsion (aOR 1.57, 95% CI 1.37–1.82).”

Some helpful figures include that:

For every 5000 women who birth in water:

• 3 will develop a uterine infection (but none in the research required hospitalisation).
• There are 30 fewer postpartum haemorrhages than among the same number of women who birth on land.
• There will be 4 fewer severe perineal lacerations (deep tears) than among the same number of women who birth on land.
• There will be 14 fewer hospital admissions in the first six weeks after birth than among the same number of women who birth on land.
• 10 will have an umbilical cord avulsion (where the cord snaps before being tied).

For every 5000 babies who are born in water:

• There are 6 fewer cases of respiratory distress syndrome than among the same number of babies who are born on land.
• There are 10 fewer hospital admissions in the first six weeks after birth than among the same number of babies who are born on land.

“Importantly, there was no difference in the number of neonatal deaths between babies born underwater and those born on land.” (Bovbjerg et al 2021). 

Australia: is a trial feasible?

In 2022, researchers in Australia looked at the question of whether a prospective study of water birth is feasible. This question has been debated for years. Randomised trials are considered to be the best way of assessing the effectiveness of an intervention, but the idea of randomising women in labour is problematic for a number of reasons.

“We conducted a prospective cohort study at an Australian maternity hospital. Eligible women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 36 weeks of gestation were recruited and surveyed about their willingness for randomization.”

“1260 participants were recruited; 15% (n = 188) agreed to randomization in a future trial. 550 women were analyzed by intention-to-treat analysis: 351 (waterbirth) and 199 (nonwaterbirth).”

“A randomized trial of waterbirth compared with nonwaterbirth, powered to detect a difference in serious neonatal morbidity, is unlikely to be feasible. A powered prospective study with intention-to-treat analysis at onset of second stage is feasible.”

Australia

Another 2022 study, “reinforces the safety of warm water immersion and waterbirth, including, for the first time, a selected group of women requiring continuous electronic fetal monitoring.” (Seed et al 2022)

A few things stand out about this paper, though. Its authors include senior obstetricians, it included women who were having continuous electronic fetal monitoring, and it has been published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology with a clear recommendation to increase access to water immersion, including for women who are having continuous electronic fetal monitoring.

As the authors state:

“Maternal preference for warm water immersion (WWI) and waterbirth is increasing, but adoption into obstetric guidelines and clinical practice remains limited. Concerns regarding safety and a paucity of evidence have been cited as reasons for the limited adoption and uptake.” Seed et al (2022)

The current study also shows the safety of warm water immersion and water birth.

“Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar between groups, with no increased risk evident in the waterbirth and warm water immersion groups.” Seed et al (2022)

The authors conclude that, “We recommend increasing access to water immersion, including for those women who require continuous electronic fetal monitoring.” Seed et al (2022)

(Note from Sara: is there evidence showing that electronic fetal monitoring isn’t effective? Yes, absolutely. But that’s not the main point here. This is a study from an obstetric department evidencing the safety of waterbirth. It’s important to consider studies in context.)

USA

A 2023 systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing waterbirth to landbirth has shown that women who have waterbirth experience less pain, are less likely to need epidural/spinal anaesthesia and are more satisfied after their birth.

Although we have data from tens of thousands of waterbirths showing that this is safe and satisfying, there aren’t many randomised controlled trials on this.

Edwards et al (2023) looked at the outcomes of six trials which included 706 women who were at least 37 weeks pregnant with just one baby in a head down position.

Both labour augmentation (when an oxytocin drip is used to try to speed up labour) and neuraxial anesthesia (spinal or epidural) were less common in those who had waterbirth.

And many outcomes did not differ between the two groups, including estimated blood loss, postpartum hemorrhage, perineal laceration, episiotomy, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes.

This again confirms that waterbirth is no less safe than land birth, and it carries some advantages in terms of maternal pain and satisfaction. You can read the research here.

Brazil

In 2026, we saw the publication of the first Brazilian waterbirth study in an international journal.

Researchers set out, “To analyse maternal and neonatal outcomes in assisted waterbirths versus land births in a Brazilian freestanding birth centre. We conducted a cross-sectional study using retrospective data from 2012 to 2024. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of 919 waterbirths were compared to 2,805 land births, including perineal tear and repair, postpartum haemorrhage, retained placenta, maternal and neonatal transfers, neonatal resuscitation, and Apgar scores.“

Their findings included no differences in neonatal resuscitation, transfer rate, or Apgar score, and no increase in adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes. The authors note that these findings, “…support waterbirth as a safe option for healthy women in birth centres.” (Vicente Nakazone et al 2026).

Turkey

A 2026 retrospective cohort study from Turkey looked at the labour outcomes of, “…408 women divided into four groups: 102 primiparous and 102 multiparous women in the hydrotherapy group and 102 primiparous and 102 multiparous women in the conventional delivery group.”

The Soothing Touch of Water: Maternal Comfort and Neonatal Outcomes in Hydrotherapy-Assisted Labor again shows that, “Hydrotherapy-assisted labor provides significant maternal pain relief, reduced perineal trauma, and improved neonatal outcomes, with no increased risks.”

The Aqua Apgar

Midwives who attend the births of babies born in water have long been aware that there are some differences in their behaviour compared to babies born on land. They are often calmer, and they acclimatise to the change of being born in a gentler way. This is one reason why some women, midwives, and birth folk are big fans of water as a medium for labour and birth.

At the same time, midwives became aware that the usual method of evaluating the condition of newborn babies – the Apgar score – wasn’t always accurately reflecting the health and calmness of babies born in water, especially in the first minute or so after birth. That is partly because the scoring system was based on the (rather reasonable at the time it was created) assumption that all babies were born on land, or into air, depending on how you look at it. It expected the healthiest babies to be vigorous, and didn’t really account for these calm but very healthy and alert babies who were being born in the water.

As Dianne Garland (2017) notes in her book on waterbirth, the physiology of the first breath in a newborn is different in water than on land, and this is partly why midwife Cornelia Enning developed the Aqua Apgar score.

Camargo et al (2017) explain the rationale for using the Aqua Apgar (the elements of which can be seen in detail here) in their research study, noting that, when researchers use the traditional Apgar scoring system, “they did not consider that infants born in water manifest their vitality by moving their legs and arms, opening and closing their eyes, opening and closing their mouths, and swallowing, as presented by Cornelia Enning.” Carmargo et al (2017) concluded that, “This may be a differential in our study, in the excellence of the results obtained from our Aqua APGAR results in the first minute after birth.”

Qualitative research

A 2023 review of evidence from qualitative studies looked at the benefits that women report to be associated with water immersion. Some of the studies also looked at midwives’ and other professionals’ experiences of the benefits.

The review looked at 13 studies from Australia, the UK, Sweden, Canada, Portugal, Greece, Scotland and the USA which were published between 2013 and 2020. Nine looked at both the first and second stages of labour, and the other four looked only at the second stage.

But the study also highlighted that we need to address barriers, such as restrictive policies, professional attitudes, and the need for training.

Benefits beyond the physical

Another 2023 study looked at the concept of coherence, and researchers in Australia helped show how the use of water for labour and birth provides benefits for women which go beyond the physical.

As Cooper & Briley (2023) explain:

“A growing evidence base highlights many reasons why water immersion is desired by women during labour and/or birth.

There has been reference to water immersion facilitating a sense of coherence (SOC) for the woman, which in turn is hypothesised to lead to a more positive labour, birth and postnatal experience (Lewis et al. 2018).

However, the concept of SOC as it relates to water immersion has not been fully explored.”

Their paper explores the concept, using research methods and a focus which allows us to go beyond the reductionist, physically-focused approach taken by western medicine and the obstetric paradigm.

Cooper and Briley (2023) conclude that:

“The literature exploring women’s experiences and views of water immersion, appears to consistently report that women experience physiological, physical and psychological benefits and that these benefits complement each other to facilitate greater self-efficacy and a more holistic experience.

This combination of benefits afforded by water immersion facilitates a sense of coherence and subsequently, increases the likelihood of the woman experiencing labour and birth as both positive and satisfying.

A greater understanding of women’s experiences of water immersion will provide rationale and reason for making the option a real choice while revealing the positive impacts that it can have on all outcomes beyond just the physical.”

Women’s Satisfaction and Experiences of Waterbirth

A prospective cohort study has explored women’s satisfaction and experiences with waterbirth compared with conventional vaginal birth (Hummel et al 2026). The findings will not surprise those who have listened carefully to women over the years. Women who gave birth in water reported higher satisfaction and more positive overall birth experiences than those who did not give birth in water.

In this study of 132 women with low-risk pregnancies, which was carried out in Sweden, those who had a waterbirth had higher total scores on the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and higher ratings of satisfaction with care on a visual analogue scale (VAS). In particular, they scored more highly in the domains of Own Capacity and Perceived Safety.

However, the authors also report that when they adjusted for potential confounders, these associations were no longer statistically significant.

It’s worth pausing to explore what this means. In observational research, women are not randomly allocated to give birth in water or on land. As a result of women self-selecting, the two groups (that is, those birthing in water or out of water) may therefore differ in ways that might influence their experience, such as their parity, labour duration, whether they had induction, and so on. By contrast, the point of a randomised controlled trial is to ensure that both groups are equal, so that these potentially confounding variables will be less of an issue.

With observational research, researchers use statistical adjustment to try to account for these differences. They ask, if we hold these other factors constant, is waterbirth itself independently associated with better experience? In this case, once factors such as age, BMI, parity, labour characteristics, and neonatal outcomes were included in regression models, waterbirth was no longer a statistically independent predictor of higher satisfaction scores.

Why nuance is needed

That does not mean the findings are unimportant. In fact, it invites nuance, and it helps us to consider the wider context. One thing that I noted is that, while the researchers don’t specifically mention that higher BMI leads to restriction of pool use, the cohort characteristics show that the waterbirth group had a lower mean BMI than the conventional birth group (mean ~23.5 in the waterbirth group vs ~25.6 in the conventional group). This suggests that restriction according to BMI might have been happening. More on that and how to challenge it here.

A closer look at the findings also shows that induction of labour was much more common in the conventional birth group (about 46%) than in the waterbirth group (about 22%). Induction was one of the factors that the researchers adjusted for, and we know from audit data and experience that rising rates of induction are partly responsible for declining rates of waterbirth in some areas.

In fact, this is the second or third example I have seen of a study whose findings didn’t quite reflect what midwives see in practice and what women say in the real world. I think it’s important to recognise that the changes, most notably the increased medicalisation, that have taken place over the past decade or so, are having effects on research findings that we are only just beginning to realise.

What do women think?

We can also learn from what did not differ. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were broadly comparable between groups, including perineal trauma, postpartum haemorrhage and neonatal wellbeing. Although numbers were small (and the study was not powered to detect rare outcomes), this adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that, for appropriately selected women, waterbirth appears to be a safe option.

Overall, this study reinforces something important: women who choose waterbirth often experience it positively. At the same time, it reminds us that experience is shaped by multiple interacting factors, such as autonomy, support, physiology, obstetric constraints, and the environment, and not simply the presence of water alone.

When we find new studies looking at the benefits of water for birth, we add them to this web page. Sign up to our newsletter to be updated. And if this page has helped you, please buy my website a coffee and help keep this information freely available to those who need it.

 photo credit: HoboMama Newborn in birth tub via photopin (license)

---

---

---

Books to help you become informed and make the decisions that are right for you…

---

---