Norwegian women’s motivations and preparations for freebirth—A qualitative study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2020.100511Get rights and content

Highlights

  • This study explores Norwegian women’s motivation and preparation for a freebirth.

  • Earlier uncomplicated births and earlier traumatic births trauma influenced the freebirth choice.

  • The women were not satisfied with the homebirth offer in Norway.

  • All the women demonstrated a deep trust in their capacity to have a normal birth.

Abstract

Aim

This study was aimed at describing Norwegian women’s motivations and preparations for freebirth.

Methods

This qualitative study involved 12 individual interviews conducted face to face or via Skype with women from different parts of Norway. The material was analysed using qualitative content analysis inspired by Graneheim and Lundman.

Results

Three categories describing the women’s motivations and preparations for freebirth were identified. Unsatisfied with the care offered today described how the women thought that hospitals did not support normal birth and made an inadequate homebirth offer. The category earlier uncomplicated and traumatic births influence freebirth choices described two different dimensions of motivations for freebirth. Trust in one’s own knowledge and capacity referred to how women viewed birth as a natural process, their faith in themselves, how this view and faith influenced their preparation and how they gained knowledge about the birth process to prepare. An overall theme emerged: deep trust in birth as a natural process and the women’s own capacity to give birth embedded in distrust of the maternity care system.

Conclusion

This study showed that motivations for freebirth were embedded in overall dissatisfaction with today’s maternity care, the inadequate homebirth offer and deep trust in the women’s own capacity to give birth.

Introduction

It is called freebirth or unassisted childbirth if women that have access to skilled birth attendants actively choose to give birth without the support of offered by maternity care [1]. Studies in Sweden, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands have shown that women who choose to give birth outside the official care system often view hospitals as places with increased risk for complications due to unnecessary interventions [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Other reasons may be distrust in the health system and a feeling that the women’s needs are not being met [1], [4]. Studies have also indicated that some women choose freebirth after prior traumatic birth experiences [1], [4], [5], [6]. The prevalence of women who choose freebirth is difficult to assess due to its covert nature. Consequently, the prevalence is unknown [1].

In high-income countries, the majority of pregnant women give birth in hospitals, and homebirth has become the exception [7]. Homebirth is often not organised by the maternity care system and is viewed as unsafe in some obstetric settings [7]. An insufficient homebirth offer can be one reason why some women choose to give birth at home without skilled care [1], [8]. If a homebirth offer exists, the guidelines usually require that women have low-risk pregnancies with no prior complicated births to be able to have homebirth with midwives [9]. Disagreement with the guidelines and strong desires to give birth at home even with pregnancies that are considered to be high risk may be reasons why women choose freebirth [3], [10].

Maternity care is part of Norway’s public health system financed by taxes to ensure equal access to health care [11]. All women can access maternity care free of charge. Intrapartum care is provided at three levels: 1) specialised units providing advanced obstetric, anaesthetic and paediatric services, including neonatal intensive care units; 2) units in smaller hospitals with obstetric and aesthetic services; and 3) free-standing and alongside midwifery-led units providing care for low-risk women. The majority of births take place in level 1 and 2 units [9]. Midwives attend all births, assist all spontaneous vaginal deliveries and are present at all operative deliveries. Midwives are the primary caregivers for low-risk women during birth, no matter where the planned place of birth is [12]. The prevalence of planned homebirths is about 1 per 1,000 births, with 100–170 occurring every year [13].

Norwegian health authorities do not organise homebirth as part of the public maternity care system [14]. The woman herself must find a midwife willing to assist at the birth at home [9]. She also has to cover the costs for the midwife, but she may receive a refund for a certain amount from the authorities [14]. The refund does not cover the total costs of having a midwife on call, so the woman has to cover some of the expenses herself. The expenses the woman bears are approximately 500–800 Euros. Evidence-based guidelines applied by the Norwegian health care system with selection criteria for homebirth exist [9], [14]. In short, to fulfil the criteria for a homebirth, a woman must have a low-risk pregnancy, had prior normal pregnancies and births, give birth at term and have a contract with a midwife who can assist at home [14]. Even if a woman has that contract, she is not guaranteed that the midwife will be able to come when she is in labour as midwives offering homebirth usually hold part-time positions in birth units or antenatal services. Studies have shown that planned homebirth is a safe option for low-risk women [15], [16], [17], [18]. Approximately 30 midwives attend homebirths in Norway.

From a global perspective, the lack of skilled care during birth is a problem, and one strategy to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality is for all women to receive help from skilled carers [19]. Choosing to give birth without skilled professionals when access is available, therefore, is considered to be controversial [1]. There is no overview of freebirth in Norway, but with a homebirth offer that is arbitrary and costly for women, it is likely that freebirth is something that happens. To our knowledge, no Norwegian studies have examined why women choose this option. Such insight could help understand women’s views on maternity care that make them want to give birth outside the system. The aim of this study was to examine women’s motivations and preparations for freebirth.

Section snippets

Methods

A qualitative approach with individual semi-structured interviews was chosen for data collection. This method was chosen to gain deeper insights into personal experiences, reasons and thoughts regarding freebirth because it may be a sensitive topic [20]. This method was also preferred instead of, for example, a survey with qualitative responses because it is possible to elaborate on and examine answers during interviews, if needed. Twelve women were purposively recruited through posts on five

Characteristics of the study participants

Twelve women who lived in Norway participated in this study. Two women lived abroad at the time of the interviews due to work and family reasons and planned the freebirth outside Norway. The women came from both cities and smaller places in all parts of Norway, except northern Norway. Their ages ranged from 23 to 42 years, and their education levels from primary to higher education. One of the women was a midwife, and two were doulas. Table 1 gives an overview of their parity and freebirth

Discussion

This study gained insights into Norwegian women’s motivations for choosing freebirth and how they prepared for it. One main theme emerged from the data: deep trust in birth as a natural process and women’s own capacity to give birth embedded in distrust of the maternity care system. In addition, three categories were identified: unsatisfied with the care offered today, earlier uncomplicated and traumatic births influence freebirth choices and trust in one’s own knowledge and capacity. One

Conclusion and recommendations for practice

This study contributes to the body of knowledge on why women choose freebirth and constitutes the first study to examine this topic in a Norwegian setting. The participating women had deep trust in themselves and their capacity to give birth. The study shows that their motivations for freebirth were embedded in overall dissatisfaction with today’s maternity care and the inadequate homebirth offer. Having an affordable, feasible homebirth offer could prevent women from having freebirth in

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References (32)

  • C. Feeley et al.

    Tensions and conflicts in 'choice': Womens' experiences of freebirthing in the UK

    Midwifery

    (2016)
  • S. Downe et al.

    Is maternity care evidence based or interpretation driven? Place of birth as an exemplar

    Midwifery

    (2008)
  • K. Malterud

    Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines

    Lancet

    (2001)
  • C. Feeley et al.

    Why do some women choose to freebirth? A meta-thematic synthesis, part one

    Int J Evid Based Healthc

    (2015)
  • E.C. Rigg et al.

    Why do women choose an unregulated birth worker to birth at home in Australia: a qualitative study

    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

    (2017)
  • M. Hollander et al.

    Women’s motivations for choosing a high risk birth setting against medical advice in the Netherlands: a qualitative analysis

    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

    (2017)
  • Cited by (6)

    • Challenging norms: Making non-normative choices in childbearing. Results of a meta ethnographic review of the literature

      2023, Midwifery
      Citation Excerpt :

      A previous traumatic experience was a noteworthy factor influencing non-normative choices whereby women sought to avoid a system that might (re)traumatise them. This featured in studies of caesarean section in the absence of obstetric indication (McKenna and Symon, 2014), water birth after caesarean section (Keedle et al., 2015) and, freebirth and high-risk home birth (Feeley and Thomson, 2016b; Jenkinson et al., 2017; Henriksen et al., 2020; Jackson et al., 2020). These studies describe how women sought to side-step previous poor experiences by making choices about the mode or location of birth and presence (or not) of attendants to avoid “being back on that butcher's bench” (Eide et al., 2019, p. 4).

    View full text