Water birth: pregnant women’s decision-making and interaction with health professionals
Parto en el agua: toma de decisiones de la gestante e interacción con los profesionales de la salud
Parto na água: tomada de decisão da gestante e interação com os profissionais de saúde
Joyce da Costa Silveira de Camargo; Fernanda Marçal Ferreira; Larissa dos Santos Henrique; Lucila Coca Leventhal; Kelly Cristina Máxima Pereira Venâncio; Natalucia Matos Araújo; Marlise de Oliveira Pimentel Lima
Abstract
Objective to explore pregnant women’s decision-making process regarding water birth, based on their personal experiences.
Methods this study employs qualitative research and thematic data analysis using the “Four Models of the Physician–Patient Relationship” framework as its theoretical and analytical foundation.
Results A total of 61 women from four Brazilian regions participated in the study. Among them, 52.5% gave birth in a hospital or birth center, whereas 47.5% opted for a home birth. Among the 83.6% who had planned their birth, 57.4% received guidance from obstetric nurses/midwives. Two thematic categories emerged: “Determinant factors in the decision-making process for water birth” and “Water birth planning: possibilities and limitations”, comprising four and three subcategories, respectively.
Final considerations and practical implications pain relief, physical comfort, and the baby’s well-being, together with a smooth transition and respect for the natural process were key factors influencing the birth method choice. The study acknowledged the use of Google Forms for online data collection as a limitation, as it potentially excluded participants without internet access or electronic devices. Respecting the birth plan was crucial for ensuring humanized care, fostering a collaborative relationship between pregnant women and healthcare professionals. This interaction facilitated knowledge sharing, provided professional prenatal support, contributed to a positive birth experience, and enhanced overall birth safety.
Keywords
Resumen
Palabras clave
Resumo
Objetivo: analisar a tomada de decisão sobre o parto na água por gestantes, a partir de suas vivências.
Métodos: pesquisa qualitativa, com análise temática dos dados, baseada no referencial teórico-analítico “Quatro modelos da relação médico-paciente”.
Resultados: participaram 61 mulheres de quatro regiões brasileiras, destas 52,5% tiveram parto em hospital ou casa de parto, enquanto 47,5% escolheram o domicílio. Das 83,6% mulheres que planejaram o parto, 57,4% receberam orientações de enfermeiras obstetras/obstetrizes. Emergiram duas categorias temáticas: “Determinantes no processo de tomada de decisão pelo parto na água” e “Planejamento do parto na água: possibilidades e limites”, com quatro subcategorias e três subcategorias respectivamente.
Considerações finais e implicações para a prática: o alívio da dor, conforto físico e bem-estar do bebê, aliados a uma transição suave e ao respeito pela naturalidade do processo, foram fatores determinantes para a tomada de decisão pela modalidade de parto. A pesquisa destacou, como limitação o Google Forms como modalidade on-line, restringindo a participação de indivíduos que não dispõem de acesso à internet e dispositivos eletrônicos. O respeito ao plano de parto foi fundamental para assistência humanizada associada à interação gestantes/profissionais para aquisição de conhecimento; ao suporte profissional pré-natalista, à experiência positiva e à segurança do parto.
Palavras-chave
Referências
1 Burns E, Feeley C, Hall PJ, Vanderlaan J. Systematic review and meta-analysis to examine intrapartum interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and waterbirth. BMJ Open. 2022 jul;12(7):e056517.
2 Dado M, Smith V, Barry P. Women’s experiences of water immersion during labour and childbirth in a hospital setting in Ireland: a qualitative study. Midwifery. 2022 maio;108:103278.
3 Clews C, Church S, Ekberg M. Women and waterbirth: a systematic meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Women Birth. 2020;33(6):566-73.
4 Aughey H, Jardine J, Moitt N, Fearon K, Hawdon J, Pasupathy D et al. Waterbirth: a national retrospective cohort study of factors associated with its use among women in England. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):256.
5 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(1):59-65.
6 Annandale E, Baston H, Beynon-Jones S, Brierley-Jones L, Brodrick A, Chappell P et al. Shared decision-making during childbirth in maternity units: the VIP mixed-methods study. Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2022;10(36):1-160.
7 Macedo JC, António I, Macedo E, Lopes MF. O plano de parto como mecanismo de proteção do direito à autodeterminação da mulher em contexto obstétrico em Portugal. Rev Bioética y Derecho. 2023;58:223-42.
8 Kurvinen M, Lamminpää R, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. Women’s experiences of waterbirth: a systematic review with narrative synthesis. Midwifery. 2025;147:104434.
9 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.
10 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum care for healthy women and their babies. Clinical Guidelines [Internet]. London: NICE; 2014 [citado 2024 ago 15]. Disponível em:
11 Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992;267(16):2221-6.
12 Bertoni LM, Galinkin AL. Teoria e métodos em representações sociais. In: Mororó LP, Couto MES, Assis RAM, organizadores. Notas teórico-metodológicas de pesquisas em educação: concepções e trajetórias. Ilhéus, BA: Editus; 2017. p. 101-22.
13 Moscovici S. A psicanálise, sua imagem e seu público. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2012.
14 Souza VR, Marziale MH, Silva GT, Nascimento PL. Translation and validation into Brazilian Portuguese and assessment of the COREQ checklist. Acta Paul Enferm. 2021;34:eAPE02631.
15 Bardin L. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70; 2011.
16 Minayo MCS, Gomes R, Deslandes SF. Pesquisa social: teoria, método e criatividade. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2025.
17 Minayo MCS. O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa qualitativa em saúde. 14ª ed. São Paulo: Hucitec; 2014.
18 Burns E, Feeley C, Hall PJ, Vanderlaan J. Systematic review and meta-analysis to examine intrapartum interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and waterbirth. BMJ Open. 2022;12(7):e056517.
19 Edwards S, Angarita AM, Talasila S, Berghella V. Waterbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Perinatol. 2024;41(9):1134-42.
20 World Health Organization. WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2018 [citado 2024 nov 18]. Disponível em:
21 Davis-Floyd R. The technocratic, humanistic, and holistic paradigms of childbirth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;75(Suppl 1):S5-23.
22 World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on maternal and newborn care for a positive postnatal experience [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2022 [citado 2024 set 12]. Disponível em:
23 International Confederation of Midwives. ICM essential competencies for midwifery practice. The Hague: International Confederation of Midwives; 2024 [citado 2024 dez 15]. Disponível em:
24 World Health Organization. Transitioning to midwifery models of care: global position paper [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2024 [citado 2024 ago 15]. Disponível em:
25 Neergheen VL, Chaer L, Plough A, Curtis E, Paterson VJ, Trisha Short RN, et al. Assessing patient autonomy in the context of TeamBirth, a quality improvement intervention to improve shared decision‐making during labor and birth. Birth. 2024;51(4):855-66.
26 Agbi FA, Zhou L, Asamoah EO. Quality of communication between healthcare providers and pregnant women: impact on maternal satisfaction, health outcomes, and shared decision-making. UJOG. 2023 Nov. 3;2(1):3-10.
27 Maia T, Souza JP, Cecatti JG. Barriers to waterbirth implementation in Brazilian obstetric units: a national survey. Int J Childbirth. 2021;11(3):145-58.
28 Ulfsdottir H, Saltvedt S, Ekborn M, Georgsson S. Waterbirth in low-risk pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Birth. 2022;49(2):254-63.
29 Henderson J, Burns EE, Regalia AL, Casarin J, Lindseth A. “It’s the most intimate thing”: Qualitative evidence on how water immersion influences women’s sense of control and safety during childbirth. Midwifery. 2020;82:102591.
30 McKinney JA, Vilchez G, Jowers A, Atchoo A, Lin L, Kaunitz AM et al. Water birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;230(3S):S961, 979.e33.
Aceito em:
18/09/2025
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email