The birthing room and its influence on the promotion of a normal physiological childbirth - a qualitative interview study with midwives in Sweden

References

• Antonovsky, A. (1996). The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promotion International, 11(1), 11–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/11.1.11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aune, I., Amundsen, H. H., & Skaget Aas, L. C. (2014). Is a midwife’s continuous presence during childbirth a matter of course? Midwives’ experiences and thoughts about factors that may influence their continuous support of women during labour. Midwifery, 30(1), 89–95. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg, M., Goldkuhl, L., Nilsson, C., Wijk, H., Gyllensten, H., Lindahl, G., Uvnäs Moberg, K., & Begley, C. (2019). Room4Birth - the effect of an adaptable birthing room on labour and birth outcomes for nulliparous women at term with spontaneous labour start: Study protocol for a randomised controlled superiority trial in Sweden. Trials, 20(1), 629. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3765-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaaka, G., & Schauer Eri, T. (2008). Doing midwifery between different belief systems. Midwifery, 24(3), 344–352. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2006.10.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourgeault, I. L., Sutherns, R., Macdonald, M., & Luce, J. (2012). Problematising public and private work spaces: Midwives’ work in hospitals and in homes. Midwifery, 28(5), 582–590. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2012.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson, I.-M., Larsson, I., & Jormfeldt, H. (2020). Place and space in relation to childbirth: A critical interpretive synthesis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 15(sup1), 1667143. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2019.1667143
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dahlberg, H., & Dahlberg, K. (2019). The question of meaning-a momentous issue for qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 14(1), 1598723. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2019.1598723
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, H., & Dahlberg, K. (2020). Open and reflective lifeworld research: A third way. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(5), 458–464. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419836696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, K., Dahlberg, H., & Nyström, M. (2008). Reflective lifeworld research. Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, D., & Homer, C. (2016). Birthplace as the midwife’s work place: How does place of birth impact on midwives? Women and Birth: Journal of the Australian College of Midwives, 29(5), 407–415. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2016.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, D., & Walker, K. (2010). The corporeal, the social and space/place: Exploring intersections from a midwifery perspective in New Zealand. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 17(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09663691003737645
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis‐Floyd, R. (2001). The technocratic, humanistic, and holistic paradigms of childbirth. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 75(1), S5–S23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(01)00510-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drglin, Z. (2020). Towards salutogenetic birth space. In M. Z. Jovandaric & S. J. Milenkovic (Eds.), Childbirth ( chap 7). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89771
   Google Scholar
• Fahy, K. M., & Parratt, J. A. (2006). Birth territory: A theory for midwifery practice. Women and Birth: Journal of the Australian College of Midwives, 19(2), 45–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2006.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Hammond, A., Foureur, M., & Homer, C. S. E. (2014). The hardware and software implications of hospital birth room design: A midwifery perspective. Midwifery, 30(7), 825–830. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.07.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond, A., Homer, C. S. E., & Foureur, M. (2017). Friendliness, functionality and freedom: Design characteristics that support midwifery practice in the hospital setting. Midwifery, 50, 133–138. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2017.03.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodnett, E. D., Downe, S., Walsh, D., & Weston, J. (2010). Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2010(9), CD000012. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000012.pub3
   Google Scholar
• International Confederation of Midwives. (2014). Position statement. Keeping birth normal. The Hauge: International Confederation of Midwives. https://www.internationalmidwives.org/assets/files/statement-files/2018/04/keeping-birth-normal-eng.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Keating, A., & Fleming, V. E. M. (2009). Midwives’ experiences of facilitating normal birth in an obstetric-led unit: A feminist perspective. Midwifery, 25(5), 518. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2007.08.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lankshear, G., Ettorre, E., & Mason, D. (2005). Decision-making, uncertainty and risk: Exploring the complexity of work processes in NHS delivery suites. Health, Risk & Society, 7(4), 361–377. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570500390499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lepori, B. (1994). Freedom of movement in birth places. Children’s Environments, 11(2), 81–87. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41514917.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lindgren, H., Kjaergaard, H., Olafsdottir, O. A., Blix, E., & Lindgren, H. (2014). Praxis and guidelines for planned homebirths in the Nordic countries - An overview. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 5(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2013.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittelmark, M., Sagy, S., Eriksson, M., Bauer, G., Pelikan, J., Lindström, B., & Espnes, G. A. (2017). The handbook of salutogenesis. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• National Board of Health and Welfare. (2019). Statistics on pregnancies, deliveries and newborn infants 2017. Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare. https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/statistik/2019-5-3.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, C., Olafsdottir, O. A., Lundgren, I., Berg, M., & Dellenborg, L. (2019). Midwives’ care on a labour ward prior to the introduction of a midwifery model of care: A field of tension. International Journal Of Qualitative Studies On Health And Well-Being, 14(1), 1593037. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2019.1593037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roxberg, Å., Tryselius, K., Gren, M., Lindahl, B., Werkander Harstäde, C., Silverglow, A., Nolbeck, K., James, F., Carlsson, I.-M., Olausson, S., Nordin, S., & Wijk, H. (2020). Space and place for health and care. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 15(sup1), 1750263. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1750263
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sandall, J., Soltani, H., Gates, S., Shennan, A., & Devane, D. (2016). Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4(4), CD004667. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seibold, C., Licqurish, S., Rolls, C., & Hopkins, F. (2010). ‘Lending the space’: Midwives perceptions of birth space and clinical risk management. Midwifery, 26(5), 526. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2010.06.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Swedish Pregnancy Register. (2020, December 2). Huddinge: Karolinska Institutet. https://www.medscinet.com/gr/default.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, B., Fenwick, J., Thomson, V., & Foureur, M. (2016). The birth bed: A qualitative study on the views of midwives regarding the use of the bed in the birth space. Women and Birth: Journal of the Australian College of Midwives, 29(1), 80–84. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2015.08.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trevathan, W. R., & McKenna, J. J. (1994). Evolutionary environments of human birth and infancy: Insights to apply to contemporary life. Children’s Environments, 11(2), 88–104. Retrieved November 14, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41514918.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, R. S., Zimring, C., Zhu, X., Dubose, J., Seo, H.-B., Choi, Y.-S., Quan, X., & Joseph, A. (2008). A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD), 1(3), 61–125. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/193758670800100306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, D. J. (2006). ‘Nesting’ and ‘Matrescence’ as distinctive features of a free-standing birth centre in the UK. Midwifery, 22(3), 228–239. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2005.09.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. (2018). WHO recommendations. Intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/260178/9789241550215-eng.pdf;jsessionid=89BFA0117E5E10CCA9CE68D28530B071?sequence=1
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zang, Y., Lu, H., Zhang, H., Huang, J., Zhao, Y., & Ren, L. (2021). Benefits and risks of upright positions during the second stage of labour: An overview of systematic reviews. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 114, 103812. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar