What is 'physiological birth'? A scoping review of the perspectives of women and care providers

Problem: Physiological birth was defined by the World Health Organization in 1997, however, clinical practices in childbirth have changed considerably since this time.

Background: Ambiguous terms in healthcare such as 'physiological birth' may cause confusion amongst care providers and consumers.

Aim: To identify what is known about physiological birth, and how perceptions of physiological birth manifest in current literature.

Methods: This review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Four databases were searched using keywords relating to physiological birth. Relevant studies were identified using agreed criteria, and data were extracted and synthesised.

Results: A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Three connected factors were identified: (1) Physiological birth in a risk-averse system, (2) Dominant voices in birth, and (3) Lack of exposure to physiological birth. No unified universal definition of physiological birth was identified in the literature.

Discussion: 'Physiological birth' as a term lacks consistency. A risk-averse healthcare system could be a barrier to physiological birth. Dominant voices in the birthing space can dictate the way birth occurs. Lack of exposure to physiological birth may diminish the acquisition and maintenance of important skills and knowledge among care providers. Recognising the factors important to women could lead to a positive birth experience.

Conclusion: Excluding a woman's subjective experience from health professionals' understanding of physiological birth increases the likelihood of risk management being the paramount objective in clinical decision-making. We propose it is timely to align clinical understanding of physiological birth with midwifery's woman-centred professional philosophy.