Knowledge From the Afrikan World, For the World

PMC Articles

What Is My Role? A Qualitative Study of Labor, Birth, and Postpartum Experiences of Partners

PMCID: PMC12745183

PMID: 41456949

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study explores partners' roles during labor, birth, and the postpartum period, and the factors influencing their performance. A qualitative interpretive phenomenological approach was adopted to explore participants' lived experiences. A total of 31 partners participated in semi‐structured face‐to‐face interviews using open‐ended questions. The roles performed by partners can be grouped into a single role: comprehensive caregiver of the birthing woman and the newborn, encompassing physical, emotional, and social care. Facilitators included effective communication, access to information, a sense of involvement, and prior experience, whereas barriers comprised insufficient support, exclusion, uncertainty, and undervaluation of their role. This dynamic role evolves through sociocultural expectations, feedback with professionals, and institutional policies, highlighting the importance of supporting partners to strengthen family‐centred care. Key Points Partners (both women and men) fulfill a comprehensive caregiving role encompassing physical, emotional, and social domains. The social dimension includes acting as a spokesperson, serving as a liaison, and participating in decision‐making. This role is dynamic and continuously evolving, highlighting the importance of supporting partners to strengthen family‐centred care. This study identifies three distinct forms of decision‐making within the partner's social role: joint decision‐making, supportive decision‐making, and autonomous decision‐making. This nuanced categorization offers new insight into how partners participate in clinical and relational processes during labor, birth, and the postpartum period. The study highlights previously underexplored barriers to partner involvement, notably the undervaluation of partners' caregiving role and limited institutional support, underscoring the need for policies and practices that strengthen family‐centred care.

Full Text

For women, partner presence during childbirth is considered beneficial, as it increases confidence and enhances coping ability during labor (World Health Organization 2020a, 2020b). Moreover, such involvement contributes to psychological well‐being (Hoffmann et al. 2023), and is associated with a higher likelihood of vaginal birth, reducing the need for interventions such as caesarean section or operative vaginal delivery (Dubey et al. 2023). Furthermore, it significantly affects the partner's adaptation to the new role and promotes emotional bonding with the newborn (Michałek‐Kwiecień et al. 2022). This dynamic not only promotes the well‐being of family members (Watkins et al. 2024), but may also confer public‐health benefits (Wynter et al. 2021). Accordingly, partner presence is regarded as essential for a positive birth experience (Wanyenze et al. 2022), and the WHO recommends continuous support from a companion of the woman's choice during labor and birth (World Health Organization 2020a, 2020b).
Evolving perinatal care models have increasingly emphasized family‐centred approaches, which recognize the importance of integrating partners and close family members in caregiving (Bohren et al. 2017). Traditionally, care focused primarily on the woman, prioritizing her physical and emotional well‐being. In contrast, family‐centred models aim to provide a holistic understanding of the birthing woman within her family context, enhancing satisfaction with care and potentially improving perinatal outcomes (Wanyenze et al. 2022; Small et al. 2025). By actively involving partners, these models support parents in adapting to new roles and foster a mutually supportive environment (Wynter et al. 2021).
This study is informed by a family‐centred care framework, which emphasizes the interdependence of family members during childbirth. This perspective positions partner involvement as a key component of supportive perinatal care, recognizing its contribution to emotional well‐being, parental role development, and improved perinatal outcomes (Bohren et al. 2017; Wynter et al. 2021). Additionally, this study interprets partner involvement using Watson's Theory of Human Caring (Watson 2008), conceptualizing care as a transpersonal process that supports holistic well‐being. This framework, together with Watson's Theory of Human Caring, provides a basis for examining how partners participate and how their involvement is shaped by contextual factors.
Partner roles in childbirth have evolved markedly in recent years, especially with the promotion of family‐centred care models that respect the birth process. Longworth et al. (2021) found that partner roles range from passive positions (e.g., observers) to active participation in the birthing process. Reported partner support actions predominantly include provision of emotional support; meeting physical‐care needs; communication tasks (Wanyenze et al. 2022), psychological support (Vischer et al. 2020), physical assistance and protection (Wanyenze et al. 2022), advocacy for the birthing woman; caregiving tasks; information exchange and expression of parental wishes (Longworth et al. 2021), and participation in decision‐making (Ngai and Xiao 2021). Such participation may involve partners neglecting their own needs to prioritize the birthing woman's needs (Harrison et al. 2024; Uribe‐Torres et al. 2024).
Facilitating factors for partner participation in the perinatal process include prior birth experience (Mulugeta et al. 2024), prenatal parental education (Nambile Cumber et al. 2024; Palioura et al. 2023), particularly when offered free of charge and outside working hours (Wynter et al. 2021), midwifery training and support (Wynter et al. 2021), support for midwives (Schmitt et al. 2022; Wanyenze et al. 2022), and access to accurate information (Griffith et al. 2025; Nambile Cumber et al. 2024). Identified barriers to partner participation include resource allocation, organization of care, facility limitations, and cultural attitudes (Sun et al. 2025; Kabakian‐Khasholian and Portela 2017). Additional obstacles include insufficient consideration for partners; individual, social, cultural and service‐level characteristics (Wynter et al. 2021), poor communication (Harrison et al. 2024), restrictive gender norms (Watkins et al. 2024), and lack of recognition by healthcare professionals (Baldwin et al. 2018).
Several authors have described the partner's role during childbirth as ambiguous or confusing (Vahtel et al. 2021). Partners have reported feeling like ‘spare parts’ (Roberts and Spiby 2020) or mere visitors (Hodgson et al. 2021). This lack of role clarity reflects insufficient information or understanding and contributes to partners’ uncertainty about how to support the birthing woman effectively during labor (Elmir and Schmied 2022).
Despite increasing interest in partner roles during childbirth and the perinatal period, most studies have focused predominantly on fathers in heterosexual relationships, thereby overlooking diverse family configurations. More recently, research has begun to examine the experiences of same‐sex couples within maternity services (Denvir et al. 2025). This shift reflects the need for a more inclusive approach to family diversity, recognizing that both heterosexual and LGBTQ+ couples contribute to perinatal support (Fisher et al. 2021).
In this population, 67.9% of mothers are aged 30–39 years, 24.7% are of foreign nationality, and 95.2% of births occur in public hospitals, while 4.0% take place in private centres and 0.8% occur at home. Furthermore, 50.6% of births are first‐time deliveries (Eustat 2025).
At Donostia University Hospital, childbirth care follows multidisciplinary protocols that prioritize safety, humane care, and family involvement (Osakidetza 2018a, 2018b). Although the hospital's approach encourages partner involvement to foster a supportive and emotionally safe environment during birth, the partner's exact role is not explicitly defined in institutional policy. This lack of formal definition may influence how partners engage in perinatal care and the experiences they report, highlighting the relevance of exploring their roles within the institutional context. In addition, a one‐to‐one care model is implemented, in which a midwife provides continuous, dedicated support to each birthing woman throughout labor and birth.
The study employed a qualitative methodology using an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach to obtain a detailed examination of personal lived experiences (Eatough and Smith 2017). Using this approach, participants’ experiences were described and interpreted, recognizing that full understanding requires consideration of both participants’ and researchers’ perspectives. This phenomenon is described by Smith et al. (2022) as the “process of double hermeneutics”.
Participants were the partners (both women and men) of birthing women. They were recruited by two midwives (M.F.‐S. and S.T.‐R.) between February and May 2023 in the postpartum unit of Donostia University Hospital, within 48 h after delivery, which corresponds to the typical hospital stay for uncomplicated births and ensured that all eligible partners could be approached before discharge. To minimize recruitment bias, midwives not involved in participants' clinical care approached eligible candidates in line with the study's inclusion criteria. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, and the sample size was determined by the principle of data saturation (Saunders et al. 2018). A total of 46 partners were initially approached. Of these, 15 ultimately did not participate: 9 withdrew their consent, 5 could not be reached by phone, and 1 did not attend the scheduled interview. Therefore, the final number of participating partners was 31.
Partners provided written informed consent to participate after receiving oral and written information about the study's purpose. Thereafter, participants completed a questionnaire collecting sociodemographic and obstetric characteristics (Table 1) and contact details. Inclusion criteria were: being the partner (regardless of gender) of the birthing woman and having been present during the perinatal process; adequate oral and written comprehension of Spanish and/or Basque; age ≥ 18 years; and capacity to understand and sign informed consent. Participation was restricted to partners of women who had delivered a liveborn infant at ≥ 37 weeks' gestation.
At 8 weeks postpartum, the principal researcher (a midwife; B.P.‐G.) telephoned participants to arrange a semi‐structured, face‐to‐face interview at a time convenient for them. Interviews were conducted by the principal investigator between April and July 2023, using a thematic interview guide (Table 2).
Data were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA; Smith et al. 2022). Verbatim transcripts were read and re‐read independently by all researchers to perform initial coding. Subsequently, four researchers (B.P.‐G., M.F.‐S., S.T.‐R. and J.X.H.‐E.) compared codes to generate categories and potential themes, progressing from descriptive coding to interpretative analysis. Connections between emerging themes were analyzed and grouped to structure the analysis around central concepts. Subthemes were then identified using thematic maps (Figure 1).
Table 3 presents an example of this analytic process. The analytic process was iterative, with ongoing review and revision of the data. Emerging ideas were recorded in memos, accompanied by ongoing reflexive consideration of researchers' assumptions and preconceptions to mitigate subjective bias. Data saturation was monitored throughout the analysis process; saturation was considered reached when no new codes or themes emerged from subsequent interviews (Saunders et al. 2018). Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached among the research team. Atlas.ti version 8 (Friese 2017) was used to manage, sort, retrieve, and compare data during analysis.
Rigor was addressed according to Lincoln and Guba (1985) criteria—credibility, transferability, confirmability, and dependability—which underpinned the trustworthiness of the findings. Credibility was enhanced through extensive verbatim quotations from interviews, which supported the study's interpretative claims. Transferability was supported by providing a detailed description of the study context and data‐collection procedures, and by assessing the representativeness of the dataset. Confirmability was promoted through reflexive practices, including the maintenance of a reflective diary to identify and minimize potential researcher bias. Dependability was reinforced through investigator triangulation and the use of qualitative analysis software to organize data systematically. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines (Tong et al. 2007) guided the reporting of this study, and the use of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) further strengthened the methodological rigor by enabling an in‐depth understanding of participants' lived experiences.
The study included 31 partners, primarily fathers (96.8%), along with one female partner from a same‐sex couple. Most participants were born in Spain (93.5%), and employed (96.8%), with a mean age of 35.7 years. The majority lived in rural areas (67.7%) and held higher education degrees (96.8%). Regarding parity, 35.5% were first‐time parents, and 48.4% had attended antenatal preparation courses. Spontaneous vaginal births predominated (93.5%), with epidural analgesia used in 74.1% of cases (Table 1).
Figure 2 provides a visual summary that integrates the elements addressed in this study. At the centre of the figure is the role of the comprehensive caregiver, which comprises three aspects, physical, emotional, and social care that encompass the actions described in the results. This role is influenced by facilitating and hindering factors, represented in the figure by upward and downward arrows, respectively. Moreover, three conditioning factors influence these factors: sociocultural expectations, current policies, and feedback between partners and healthcare professionals.
The results of this study provide an updated perspective on the roles that partners play during labor, birth, and the postpartum period, highlighting an evolution relative to previous research. In their ethnographic study, Longworth et al. (2021) classified partners' roles during labor and birth as active or passive, consistent with Chapman (1992) earlier typology. However, in our study, all partner roles were active.
Longworth et al. (2021) further concluded that partners adopted four roles during childbirth: observer, caregiver, intermediary, and advocate, in response to contextual influences that serve the overarching goal of “protecting” the woman. In our study, a single multidimensional role was identified, that of caregiver, which included three aspects: providing physical, emotional, and social care.
Harrison et al. (2024) described partners as performing specific practical tasks, and Wanyenze et al. (2022) reported that partners provide emotional and physical support, but did not emphasize the social dimension highlighted in our study. In this context, social care encompassed acting as spokesperson, intermediary, and decision‐maker. The intermediary role (exchange of information) and the advocate role (communicating prior decisions) identified by Longworth et al. (2021) corresponded in the present study to the roles of liaison and spokesperson, respectively. Regarding the liaison function, in addition to serving as a link between professionals and external contacts, we identified a novel nuance: acting as the partner's link to the woman when the newborn required admission.
In relation to decision‐making, this study provided a novel perspective that expanded existing knowledge. Whereas previous studies (Shareef et al. 2024; Vahtel et al. 2021) examined this issue in isolation from the partner's role, the present study findings demonstrated that decision‐making was embedded within the partner's social role, manifesting in three forms: consensual, supportive, and autonomous.
The findings of the study make it possible to link the participation of partners in childbirth with Jean Watson's Theory of Human Caring (Watson 2008), by conceptualizing care as a transpersonal relationship that promoted well‐being from a holistic perspective. In this context, partners assumed a multidimensional role by providing physical, emotional, and social support, and by recognizing the woman as a whole being. This involvement not only strengthened the bond but also transformed the childbirth experience into a shared and meaningful process. Watson (2008) argued that caring had a transformative effect on both the caregiver and the recipient, constituting a co‐created process in which both were mutually acknowledged. Thus, partners become comprehensive caregivers, actively involved in creating an environment of trust, respect, and companionship.
These findings not only support Watson's conceptualization of caring as a transpersonal, holistic process, but also extend existing theoretical perspectives by integrating multiple dimensions of the partner's role—physical, emotional, and social—into a single comprehensive caregiver role. This challenges previous classifications of partner involvement as strictly active or passive (Longworth et al. 2021), highlighting the transformative potential of partner participation in perinatal care and its broader implications for family‐centred care models.
With respect to the factors that facilitated the performance of the caregiver role, the results obtained in this study aligned with those of previous studies. Communication with professionals was highlighted by Harrison et al. (2024); access to information by Griffith et al. (2025); Nambile Cumber et al. (2024); the feeling of being a participant by Schmitt et al. (2022); and previous lived experience by Mulugeta et al. (2024). In relation to information, it is noteworthy that, despite its recognized importance, more than half of the partners did not attend the education classes prior to childbirth. In this regard, the implementation of policies at different organizational levels to promote attendance seems appropriate (Leavy‐Warren et al. 2022).
With respect to difficulties in performing the caregiver role, the results of this study identified two factors not previously addressed in the literature: inadequate care of the caregiver and undervaluation of their role. Regarding the first factor, and in contrast to Harrison et al. (2024) and Uribe‐Torres et al. (2024), who concluded that partners ignored their own needs to prioritize the woman's needs, this study's findings indicated that partners sought care for themselves, particularly during the postpartum period. Addressing this difficulty and ensuring care for the caregiver requires a broad, multi‐level approach. Allport et al. (2018) reported that socioeconomic, geographical and social factors, including gender bias and restrictive gender norms, act as barriers to fathers' inclusion in family healthcare services at macro (societal and healthcare policy), meso (organizational policy) and micro (clinical practice) levels. Similarly, Watkins et al. (2024) identified barriers related to individual and organizational factors and persistent gender norms, noting that health services often remain primarily focused on women's needs. Likewise, Mwakyusa et al. (2025) and Smith et al. (2024) highlighted the need to promote policies that ensure more equitable and inclusive perinatal care. Regarding the second factor, the undervaluation of partners' role may reflect the continued invisibility of care tasks, which lack appropriate recognition (Hooyman 2024).

Sections

"[{\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0044\", \"nhs70280-bib-0045\", \"nhs70280-bib-0015\", \"nhs70280-bib-0006\", \"nhs70280-bib-0021\", \"nhs70280-bib-0042\", \"nhs70280-bib-0046\", \"nhs70280-bib-0041\", \"nhs70280-bib-0044\", \"nhs70280-bib-0045\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"For women, partner presence during childbirth is considered beneficial, as it increases confidence and enhances coping ability during labor (World Health Organization\\u00a02020a, 2020b). Moreover, such involvement contributes to psychological well\\u2010being (Hoffmann et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02023), and is associated with a higher likelihood of vaginal birth, reducing the need for interventions such as caesarean section or operative vaginal delivery (Dubey et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02023). Furthermore, it significantly affects the partner's adaptation to the new role and promotes emotional bonding with the newborn (Micha\\u0142ek\\u2010Kwiecie\\u0144 et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02022). This dynamic not only promotes the well\\u2010being of family members (Watkins et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02024), but may also confer public\\u2010health benefits (Wynter et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021). Accordingly, partner presence is regarded as essential for a positive birth experience (Wanyenze et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02022), and the WHO recommends continuous support from a companion of the woman's choice during labor and birth (World Health Organization\\u00a02020a, 2020b).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0003\", \"nhs70280-bib-0041\", \"nhs70280-bib-0033\", \"nhs70280-bib-0046\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"Evolving perinatal care models have increasingly emphasized family\\u2010centred approaches, which recognize the importance of integrating partners and close family members in caregiving (Bohren et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02017). Traditionally, care focused primarily on the woman, prioritizing her physical and emotional well\\u2010being. In contrast, family\\u2010centred models aim to provide a holistic understanding of the birthing woman within her family context, enhancing satisfaction with care and potentially improving perinatal outcomes (Wanyenze et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02022; Small et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02025). By actively involving partners, these models support parents in adapting to new roles and foster a mutually supportive environment (Wynter et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0003\", \"nhs70280-bib-0046\", \"nhs70280-bib-0043\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"This study is informed by a family\\u2010centred care framework, which emphasizes the interdependence of family members during childbirth. This perspective positions partner involvement as a key component of supportive perinatal care, recognizing its contribution to emotional well\\u2010being, parental role development, and improved perinatal outcomes (Bohren et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02017; Wynter et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021). Additionally, this study interprets partner involvement using Watson's Theory of Human Caring (Watson\\u00a02008), conceptualizing care as a transpersonal process that supports holistic well\\u2010being. This framework, together with Watson's Theory of Human Caring, provides a basis for examining how partners participate and how their involvement is shaped by contextual factors.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0020\", \"nhs70280-bib-0041\", \"nhs70280-bib-0040\", \"nhs70280-bib-0041\", \"nhs70280-bib-0020\", \"nhs70280-bib-0025\", \"nhs70280-bib-0013\", \"nhs70280-bib-0038\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"Partner roles in childbirth have evolved markedly in recent years, especially with the promotion of family\\u2010centred care models that respect the birth process. Longworth et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2021) found that partner roles range from passive positions (e.g., observers) to active participation in the birthing process. Reported partner support actions predominantly include provision of emotional support; meeting physical\\u2010care needs; communication tasks (Wanyenze et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02022), psychological support (Vischer et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02020), physical assistance and protection (Wanyenze et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02022), advocacy for the birthing woman; caregiving tasks; information exchange and expression of parental wishes (Longworth et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021), and participation in decision\\u2010making (Ngai and Xiao\\u00a02021). Such participation may involve partners neglecting their own needs to prioritize the birthing woman's needs (Harrison et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02024; Uribe\\u2010Torres et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02024).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0022\", \"nhs70280-bib-0024\", \"nhs70280-bib-0028\", \"nhs70280-bib-0046\", \"nhs70280-bib-0046\", \"nhs70280-bib-0031\", \"nhs70280-bib-0041\", \"nhs70280-bib-0012\", \"nhs70280-bib-0024\", \"nhs70280-bib-0036\", \"nhs70280-bib-0017\", \"nhs70280-bib-0046\", \"nhs70280-bib-0013\", \"nhs70280-bib-0042\", \"nhs70280-bib-0002\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"Facilitating factors for partner participation in the perinatal process include prior birth experience (Mulugeta et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02024), prenatal parental education (Nambile Cumber et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02024; Palioura et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02023), particularly when offered free of charge and outside working hours (Wynter et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021), midwifery training and support (Wynter et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021), support for midwives (Schmitt et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02022; Wanyenze et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02022), and access to accurate information (Griffith et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02025; Nambile Cumber et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02024). Identified barriers to partner participation include resource allocation, organization of care, facility limitations, and cultural attitudes (Sun et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02025; Kabakian\\u2010Khasholian and Portela\\u00a02017). Additional obstacles include insufficient consideration for partners; individual, social, cultural and service\\u2010level characteristics (Wynter et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021), poor communication (Harrison et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02024), restrictive gender norms (Watkins et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02024), and lack of recognition by healthcare professionals (Baldwin et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02018).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0039\", \"nhs70280-bib-0029\", \"nhs70280-bib-0014\", \"nhs70280-bib-0008\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"Several authors have described the partner's role during childbirth as ambiguous or confusing (Vahtel et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021). Partners have reported feeling like \\u2018spare parts\\u2019 (Roberts and Spiby\\u00a02020) or mere visitors (Hodgson et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021). This lack of role clarity reflects insufficient information or understanding and contributes to partners\\u2019 uncertainty about how to support the birthing woman effectively during labor (Elmir and Schmied\\u00a02022).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0005\", \"nhs70280-bib-0010\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"Despite increasing interest in partner roles during childbirth and the perinatal period, most studies have focused predominantly on fathers in heterosexual relationships, thereby overlooking diverse family configurations. More recently, research has begun to examine the experiences of same\\u2010sex couples within maternity services (Denvir et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02025). This shift reflects the need for a more inclusive approach to family diversity, recognizing that both heterosexual and LGBTQ+ couples contribute to perinatal support (Fisher et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0009\"], \"section\": \"Setting\", \"text\": \"In this population, 67.9% of mothers are aged 30\\u201339\\u2009years, 24.7% are of foreign nationality, and 95.2% of births occur in public hospitals, while 4.0% take place in private centres and 0.8% occur at home. Furthermore, 50.6% of births are first\\u2010time deliveries (Eustat\\u00a02025).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0026\", \"nhs70280-bib-0027\"], \"section\": \"Setting\", \"text\": \"At Donostia University Hospital, childbirth care follows multidisciplinary protocols that prioritize safety, humane care, and family involvement (Osakidetza\\u00a02018a, 2018b). Although the hospital's approach encourages partner involvement to foster a supportive and emotionally safe environment during birth, the partner's exact role is not explicitly defined in institutional policy. This lack of formal definition may influence how partners engage in perinatal care and the experiences they report, highlighting the relevance of exploring their roles within the institutional context. In addition, a one\\u2010to\\u2010one care model is implemented, in which a midwife provides continuous, dedicated support to each birthing woman throughout labor and birth.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0007\", \"nhs70280-bib-0035\"], \"section\": \"Study Design\", \"text\": \"The study employed a qualitative methodology using an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach to obtain a detailed examination of personal lived experiences (Eatough and Smith\\u00a02017). Using this approach, participants\\u2019 experiences were described and interpreted, recognizing that full understanding requires consideration of both participants\\u2019 and researchers\\u2019 perspectives. This phenomenon is described by Smith et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2022) as the \\u201cprocess of double hermeneutics\\u201d.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0030\"], \"section\": \"Participants and Recruitment\", \"text\": \"Participants were the partners (both women and men) of birthing women. They were recruited by two midwives (M.F.\\u2010S. and S.T.\\u2010R.) between February and May 2023 in the postpartum unit of Donostia University Hospital, within 48\\u2009h after delivery, which corresponds to the typical hospital stay for uncomplicated births and ensured that all eligible partners could be approached before discharge. To minimize recruitment bias, midwives not involved in participants' clinical care approached eligible candidates in line with the study's inclusion criteria. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, and the sample size was determined by the principle of data saturation (Saunders et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02018). A total of 46 partners were initially approached. Of these, 15 ultimately did not participate: 9 withdrew their consent, 5 could not be reached by phone, and 1 did not attend the scheduled interview. Therefore, the final number of participating partners was 31.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-tbl-0001\"], \"section\": \"Participants and Recruitment\", \"text\": \"Partners provided written informed consent to participate after receiving oral and written information about the study's purpose. Thereafter, participants completed a questionnaire collecting sociodemographic and obstetric characteristics (Table\\u00a01) and contact details. Inclusion criteria were: being the partner (regardless of gender) of the birthing woman and having been present during the perinatal process; adequate oral and written comprehension of Spanish and/or Basque; age \\u2265\\u200918\\u2009years; and capacity to understand and sign informed consent. Participation was restricted to partners of women who had delivered a liveborn infant at \\u2265\\u200937\\u2009weeks' gestation.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-tbl-0002\"], \"section\": \"Data Collection\", \"text\": \"At 8\\u2009weeks postpartum, the principal researcher (a midwife; B.P.\\u2010G.) telephoned participants to arrange a semi\\u2010structured, face\\u2010to\\u2010face interview at a time convenient for them. Interviews were conducted by the principal investigator between April and July 2023, using a thematic interview guide (Table\\u00a02).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0035\", \"nhs70280-fig-0001\"], \"section\": \"Data Analysis\", \"text\": \"Data were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA; Smith et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02022). Verbatim transcripts were read and re\\u2010read independently by all researchers to perform initial coding. Subsequently, four researchers (B.P.\\u2010G., M.F.\\u2010S., S.T.\\u2010R. and J.X.H.\\u2010E.) compared codes to generate categories and potential themes, progressing from descriptive coding to interpretative analysis. Connections between emerging themes were analyzed and grouped to structure the analysis around central concepts. Subthemes were then identified using thematic maps (Figure\\u00a01).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-tbl-0003\", \"nhs70280-bib-0030\", \"nhs70280-bib-0011\"], \"section\": \"Data Analysis\", \"text\": \"Table\\u00a03 presents an example of this analytic process. The analytic process was iterative, with ongoing review and revision of the data. Emerging ideas were recorded in memos, accompanied by ongoing reflexive consideration of researchers' assumptions and preconceptions to mitigate subjective bias. Data saturation was monitored throughout the analysis process; saturation was considered reached when no new codes or themes emerged from subsequent interviews (Saunders et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02018). Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached among the research team. Atlas.ti version 8 (Friese\\u00a02017) was used to manage, sort, retrieve, and compare data during analysis.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0019\", \"nhs70280-bib-0037\"], \"section\": \"Rigor\", \"text\": \"Rigor was addressed according to Lincoln and Guba\\u00a0(1985) criteria\\u2014credibility, transferability, confirmability, and dependability\\u2014which underpinned the trustworthiness of the findings. Credibility was enhanced through extensive verbatim quotations from interviews, which supported the study's interpretative claims. Transferability was supported by providing a detailed description of the study context and data\\u2010collection procedures, and by assessing the representativeness of the dataset. Confirmability was promoted through reflexive practices, including the maintenance of a reflective diary to identify and minimize potential researcher bias. Dependability was reinforced through investigator triangulation and the use of qualitative analysis software to organize data systematically. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines (Tong et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02007) guided the reporting of this study, and the use of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) further strengthened the methodological rigor by enabling an in\\u2010depth understanding of participants' lived experiences.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-tbl-0001\"], \"section\": \"Results\", \"text\": \"The study included 31 partners, primarily fathers (96.8%), along with one female partner from a same\\u2010sex couple. Most participants were born in Spain (93.5%), and employed (96.8%), with a mean age of 35.7\\u2009years. The majority lived in rural areas (67.7%) and held higher education degrees (96.8%). Regarding parity, 35.5% were first\\u2010time parents, and 48.4% had attended antenatal preparation courses. Spontaneous vaginal births predominated (93.5%), with epidural analgesia used in 74.1% of cases (Table\\u00a01).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-fig-0002\"], \"section\": \"Subtheme 2: Barriers to the Development of the Caregiver Role\", \"text\": \"Figure\\u00a02 provides a visual summary that integrates the elements addressed in this study. At the centre of the figure is the role of the comprehensive caregiver, which comprises three aspects, physical, emotional, and social care that encompass the actions described in the results. This role is influenced by facilitating and hindering factors, represented in the figure by upward and downward arrows, respectively. Moreover, three conditioning factors influence these factors: sociocultural expectations, current policies, and feedback between partners and healthcare professionals.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0020\", \"nhs70280-bib-0004\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"The results of this study provide an updated perspective on the roles that partners play during labor, birth, and the postpartum period, highlighting an evolution relative to previous research. In their ethnographic study, Longworth et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2021) classified partners' roles during labor and birth as active or passive, consistent with Chapman\\u00a0(1992) earlier typology. However, in our study, all partner roles were active.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0020\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"Longworth et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2021) further concluded that partners adopted four roles during childbirth: observer, caregiver, intermediary, and advocate, in response to contextual influences that serve the overarching goal of \\u201cprotecting\\u201d the woman. In our study, a single multidimensional role was identified, that of caregiver, which included three aspects: providing physical, emotional, and social care.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0013\", \"nhs70280-bib-0041\", \"nhs70280-bib-0020\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"Harrison et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2024) described partners as performing specific practical tasks, and Wanyenze et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2022) reported that partners provide emotional and physical support, but did not emphasize the social dimension highlighted in our study. In this context, social care encompassed acting as spokesperson, intermediary, and decision\\u2010maker. The intermediary role (exchange of information) and the advocate role (communicating prior decisions) identified by Longworth et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2021) corresponded in the present study to the roles of liaison and spokesperson, respectively. Regarding the liaison function, in addition to serving as a link between professionals and external contacts, we identified a novel nuance: acting as the partner's link to the woman when the newborn required admission.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0032\", \"nhs70280-bib-0039\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"In relation to decision\\u2010making, this study provided a novel perspective that expanded existing knowledge. Whereas previous studies (Shareef et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02024; Vahtel et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021) examined this issue in isolation from the partner's role, the present study findings demonstrated that decision\\u2010making was embedded within the partner's social role, manifesting in three forms: consensual, supportive, and autonomous.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0043\", \"nhs70280-bib-0043\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"The findings of the study make it possible to link the participation of partners in childbirth with Jean Watson's Theory of Human Caring (Watson\\u00a02008), by conceptualizing care as a transpersonal relationship that promoted well\\u2010being from a holistic perspective. In this context, partners assumed a multidimensional role by providing physical, emotional, and social support, and by recognizing the woman as a whole being. This involvement not only strengthened the bond but also transformed the childbirth experience into a shared and meaningful process. Watson\\u00a0(2008) argued that caring had a transformative effect on both the caregiver and the recipient, constituting a co\\u2010created process in which both were mutually acknowledged. Thus, partners become comprehensive caregivers, actively involved in creating an environment of trust, respect, and companionship.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0020\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"These findings not only support Watson's conceptualization of caring as a transpersonal, holistic process, but also extend existing theoretical perspectives by integrating multiple dimensions of the partner's role\\u2014physical, emotional, and social\\u2014into a single comprehensive caregiver role. This challenges previous classifications of partner involvement as strictly active or passive (Longworth et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02021), highlighting the transformative potential of partner participation in perinatal care and its broader implications for family\\u2010centred care models.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0013\", \"nhs70280-bib-0012\", \"nhs70280-bib-0024\", \"nhs70280-bib-0031\", \"nhs70280-bib-0022\", \"nhs70280-bib-0018\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"With respect to the factors that facilitated the performance of the caregiver role, the results obtained in this study aligned with those of previous studies. Communication with professionals was highlighted by Harrison et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2024); access to information by Griffith et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2025); Nambile Cumber et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2024); the feeling of being a participant by Schmitt et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2022); and previous lived experience by Mulugeta et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2024). In relation to information, it is noteworthy that, despite its recognized importance, more than half of the partners did not attend the education classes prior to childbirth. In this regard, the implementation of policies at different organizational levels to promote attendance seems appropriate (Leavy\\u2010Warren et\\u00a0al.\\u00a02022).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12745183\", \"pmid\": \"41456949\", \"reference_ids\": [\"nhs70280-bib-0013\", \"nhs70280-bib-0038\", \"nhs70280-bib-0001\", \"nhs70280-bib-0042\", \"nhs70280-bib-0023\", \"nhs70280-bib-0034\", \"nhs70280-bib-0016\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"With respect to difficulties in performing the caregiver role, the results of this study identified two factors not previously addressed in the literature: inadequate care of the caregiver and undervaluation of their role. Regarding the first factor, and in contrast to Harrison et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2024) and Uribe\\u2010Torres et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2024), who concluded that partners ignored their own needs to prioritize the woman's needs, this study's findings indicated that partners sought care for themselves, particularly during the postpartum period. Addressing this difficulty and ensuring care for the caregiver requires a broad, multi\\u2010level approach. Allport et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2018) reported that socioeconomic, geographical and social factors, including gender bias and restrictive gender norms, act as barriers to fathers' inclusion in family healthcare services at macro (societal and healthcare policy), meso (organizational policy) and micro (clinical practice) levels. Similarly, Watkins et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2024) identified barriers related to individual and organizational factors and persistent gender norms, noting that health services often remain primarily focused on women's needs. Likewise, Mwakyusa et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2025) and Smith et\\u00a0al.\\u00a0(2024) highlighted the need to promote policies that ensure more equitable and inclusive perinatal care. Regarding the second factor, the undervaluation of partners' role may reflect the continued invisibility of care tasks, which lack appropriate recognition (Hooyman\\u00a02024).\"}]"

Metadata

"{}"