Systematic ReviewResearchWorkflowPatient Education

Warm-water bathing in first-stage labor appeared safe but did not clearly reduce analgesia use

Japan journal of nursing science (PubMed)Aug 13, 2026

AI-summarized from the linked source. Educational brief, not medical advice.

Brief summary

A meta-analysis of nine randomized studies found no clear reduction in regional analgesia use with warm-water bathing during first-stage labor, while maternal and neonatal safety outcomes did not differ significantly.

What NurseJet pulled from the source

The review included 1,823 healthy women with uncomplicated singleton cephalic pregnancies at 36 weeks or later. Bathing did not significantly change regional analgesia use, perineal trauma, spontaneous vaginal birth, cesarean birth, abnormal fetal-heart-rate patterns, neonatal infection, or episiotomy; instrumental vaginal birth was lower, but evidence certainty was low to very low.

Why this matters for nurses

Labor nurses support nonpharmacologic comfort choices while continuing maternal and fetal surveillance. This review suggests bathing can remain an option for eligible patients, but it should not be presented as a proven substitute for analgesia or as a way to improve delivery outcomes.

Bedside takeaway

Offer first-stage labor bathing as an eligible patient's comfort option, with hygiene, temperature, mobility, monitoring, and escalation safeguards.

How This Applies in Practice

Use this when: Supporting an eligible patient who requests warm-water bathing for comfort during the first stage of labor.

On your shift

Confirm eligibility, informed preference, water-temperature limits, tub hygiene, mobility assistance, fetal-monitoring method, and reasons to leave the bath before entry.
Reassess maternal observations, fetal status, comfort, labor progress, hydration, and safe transfer needs at the intervals required by the intrapartum pathway.
Keep pharmacologic analgesia available when requested and escalate abnormal maternal or fetal findings without delaying care for continued bathing.

Keep in mind: The evidence does not show a clear analgesic-sparing effect and applies to uncomplicated term pregnancies. Follow the obstetric protocol, facility policy, and provider orders.

Key takeaways

Nine studies from eight countries included 1,823 women with low-risk term pregnancies.
Warm-water bathing did not clearly reduce regional analgesia use during first-stage labor.
No significant differences were found for the reported maternal and neonatal safety outcomes, while instrumental vaginal birth was lower.
Overall certainty was low to very low because of bias, imprecision, limited blinding, and sparse woman-reported outcomes.

Practice implications

When bathing is available, confirm eligibility, mobility assistance, water-temperature and tub-hygiene procedures, fetal-monitoring approach, and an exit or escalation plan. Reassess comfort, maternal status, labor progress, and fetal status, and preserve access to requested analgesia.

Limitations & cautions

The included studies were conducted from 1994 to 2018 and evidence certainty was low to very low. Blinding was limited, estimates were imprecise, satisfaction evidence came from two small heterogeneous trials, and the findings apply to healthy women with uncomplicated term pregnancies.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations

Exact source links

Open source

Public citations are filtered to exact credible source pages. Homepage-only or invalid links stay in admin review and are not shown here.

Japan journal of nursing science (PubMed)

Japan journal of nursing science (PubMed). Effect of Bathing for Pain Relief During the First Stage of Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Open original source

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42591025/

Professional education only

This summary does not replace clinical judgment, facility policy, provider orders, or official guidelines. Verify practice changes against the original source and local protocol.

Related briefs

More updates for this clinical area

Back to Discover

Journal of midwifery & women's health (PubMed)Sep 7, 2026Research Article

A retrospective analysis of US natality data found no statistically significant yearly difference in neonatal mortality between freestanding birth centers and hospitals among term, singleton, vertex births without major medical risk factors from 2015 through 2024.

L&D / OB PedsAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchPatient EducationAI summary · original source linked below

Adjusted neonatal-mortality odds for freestanding birth centers fluctuated around 1.0 across the 10-year study period. No individual year showed a statistically significant difference from hospital births, including 2020 and 2021 when birth-center volume increased.

Key takeaways

The analysis was restricted to births meeting selected low-risk criteria.
The study found no evidence that higher birth-center use during the pandemic years increased neonatal mortality.
The observational design cannot establish that birth setting itself caused the mortality pattern.

Why this matters on shift

The findings add national outcome data for counseling and systems planning around freestanding birth-center care for appropriately selected low-risk pregnancies.

Bedside takeaway

Apply local eligibility, surveillance, escalation, and transfer protocols when caring for planned low-risk birth-center patients.

Nursing implications

Keep eligibility, surveillance, escalation, and transfer decisions anchored to local birth-center criteria and maternal-newborn protocols.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. The study used retrospective vital-record data, was limited to selected low-risk births, and cannot exclude residual differences between people who delivered in birth centers and hospitals.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Journal of midwifery & women's health (PubMed). Neonatal Mortality Risk Among Births in Freestanding Birth Centers, 2015 to 2024.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (PubMed)Sep 4, 2026Systematic Review

An updated Cochrane review found that long-term hormone-therapy risk profiles differed between combined therapy and estrogen-only therapy.

Med-Surg L&D / OBAI summaryReview source

Systematic ReviewResearchMedication SafetyPatient EducationAI summary · original source linked below

The review included 24 randomized, double-blind trials with 45,660 participants. Most participants were postmenopausal, the mean age in most studies exceeded 60 years, and nearly 70% of the data came from HERS and the Women's Health Initiative.

Key takeaways

Combined therapy probably increased breast-cancer risk and may have increased stroke and venous-thromboembolism risk.
Estrogen-only therapy probably increased stroke and gallbladder-surgery risk while reducing clinical fractures.
Findings were driven largely by older oral regimens and may not represent hormone therapy used today.

Why this matters on shift

Medication reconciliation and patient teaching should account for the specific hormone regimen rather than treating all hormone therapy as one exposure.

Bedside takeaway

Confirm the prescribed formulation and promptly communicate new thromboembolic, neurologic, or gallbladder symptoms through the care team.

Nursing implications

Confirm the prescribed formulation and promptly communicate new thromboembolic, neurologic, or gallbladder symptoms through the care team.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. The review addressed therapy lasting at least one year, not short-term symptom relief. Most participants were older than the group most likely to seek treatment for vasomotor symptoms.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (PubMed). Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine (PubMed)Sep 3, 2026

A meta-analysis linked maternal anemia with preterm birth, but it did not establish that anemia treatment prevents early delivery.

L&D / OBAI summaryReview source

Systematic ReviewResearchAI summary · original source linked below

The review included 45 articles covering 60 study populations and 2,119,392 pregnant individuals. The pooled odds ratio for preterm birth was 1.28 (95% CI 1.20–1.36). Between-study heterogeneity was substantial.

Key takeaways

Heterogeneity was high (I² 95.54%).
The authors identified possible publication bias.
The findings describe an association, not an absolute risk increase or a treatment effect.

Why this matters on shift

This association provides context for discussing anemia within pregnancy risk assessment.

Bedside takeaway

Use this evidence to inform discussion of maternal risk; follow the local anemia screening and treatment pathway.

Nursing implications

Use this evidence to inform discussion of maternal risk; follow the local anemia screening and treatment pathway.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. High heterogeneity and potential publication bias limit confidence in a single pooled estimate. This review does not test a specific screening or supplementation strategy.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine (PubMed). Maternal anemia and the risk of preterm birth: a meta-analysis.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

How This Applies in Practice

Key takeaways

Practice implications

Limitations & cautions

Exact source links

More updates for this clinical area

Low-risk birth-center births showed no higher neonatal mortality in a 10-year analysis

Long-term menopausal hormone therapy has formulation-specific benefits and harms

Maternal anemia was associated with higher odds of preterm birth