Hypnosis in childbirth (2026)
Dana Bolt
Department of Women’s Anaesthesia, Woman’s Children’s Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
Flinders Medical Centre, Australia
Elizabeth Newnham
College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
Allan M. Cyna
Department of Women’s Anaesthesia, Woman’s Children’s Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
Discipline of Acute Medicine, Adelaide University, Australia
Correspondence: allan.cyna@sa.gov.au, allan.cyna@adelaide.edu.au
Keywords: childbirth; pain; pregnancy
Hypnosis for childbirth, commonly known as hypnobirthing, has roots in ancient ritual practices in Egypt, India, and Greece, where rhythmic breathing and altered states of consciousness (trance) were used to reduce or dissociate from pain. Hypnotic phenomena have long been part of healing practices across cultures (Gauld, 1992).
Although these early practices were largely ritualistic, the modern medical application of hypnosis in childbirth emerged in the mid-20th century. The French obstetrician Fernand Lamaze popularised psychoprophylaxis—a program of relaxation, breathing, and suggestion adapted from Russian Autogenic Training. This approach aimed to reduce fear and improve women’s ability to cope with labor. In 1955, the British Medical Association formally endorsed the use of hypnosis in obstetrics (British Medical Association, 1955). Although hypnosis is rarely used as the sole anaesthetic for surgical procedures, its potential for relieving childbirth pain was demonstrated when a caesarean section was successfully performed using hypnosis alone (Kroger & De Lee, 1957).
Today, antenatal hypnosis programs typically teach women self-hypnosis techniques for use during labor. A Cochrane systematic review (Madden et al., 2016) reported that women receiving hypnosis were less likely to use pharmacological pain relief, although epidural rates did not differ significantly. More recent systematic reviews (Catsaros & Wendland, 2020; Fernández-Gamero et al., 2024) have shown that when compared to usual care or antenatal education, hypnosis improves the quality of the childbirth experience—particularly in relation to pain, fear reduction, empowerment, and postnatal adjustment. Variability in reported outcomes likely reflects differences in intervention duration, the stage of pregnancy when hypnosis training began, and methodological quality across trials.
Physiological adaptations in preparation for childbirth may influence responsiveness to hypnosis. Women score higher on a hypnotisability measure during late pregnancy than postpartum (Alexander et al., 2009), suggesting that pregnancy itself may enhance hypnotic susceptibility. This increased suggestibility could facilitate therapeutic changes in perception, and behaviour through awake suggestions without a formal hypnotic induction (Tibble & Brann, 2015).
Both metaphor and suggestions in hypnosis for childbirth play an important role. Describing labour contractions as pain can imply injury, whereas reframing them as “powerful waves that bring you closer to seeing and holding your baby” can promote positive associations. Common hypnotic techniques include suggestions and the use of trance logic such as “the stronger the contraction, the more effective it is, and therefore the stronger you can feel”. It may seem illogical for a mother to feel stronger as contractions intensify. However, in a hypnotic state, ‘trance logic’ allows labor pain to be reframed and experienced as effective uterine contractions and their strength linked to suggested maternal strength. This facilitates the increasing contraction intensity to diminish what otherwise might be perceived as pain. Likewise, time-distortion suggestions, for perceiving rests between contractions as longer and contraction durations shorter, can help mothers cope more easily with labor (Andrew & Cyna, 2024).
These therapeutic reframes and types of suggestion foster resilience, a sense of control, and an increased ability to cope, allowing women to perceive childbirth as an empowering experience (Andrew & Cyna, 2024).
References
Alexander, B., Turnbull, D., & Cyna, A. (2009). The effect of pregnancy on hypnotizability. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 52(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2009.10401688
Andrew, M. I., & Cyna, A. M. (2024). Pregnancy and childbirth. In A. M. Cyna, S. G. M. Tan, M. I. Andrew, L. L. Burgoyne, & S. W. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of communication, pain management and intensive care: A practical guide (pp. 123–139). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198858669.003.0010
British Medical Association. (1955). Medical use of hypnotism: BMA Subcommittee to Council. British Medical Journal Supplement, (App X), 190–193. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/1/4920/S169.full.pdf.
Catsaros, S., & Wendland, J. (2020). Hypnosis-based interventions during pregnancy and childbirth and their impact on women’s childbirth experience: A systematic review. Midwifery, 87, 102666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2020.102666
Fernández-Gamero, L., Reinoso-Cobo, A., Ruiz-González, M. de C., Cortés-Martín, J., Muñóz Sánchez, I., Mellado-García, E., & Piqueras-Sola, B. (2024). Impact of hypnotherapy on fear, pain, and the birth experience: A systematic review. Healthcare, 12(6), 616. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12060616
Gauld, A. (1992). A history of hypnotism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-30675-2.
Kroger, W. S., & De Lee, S. T. (1957). Use of hypno-anesthesia for cesarean section and hysterectomy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 163(6), 442–444. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1957.82970410001009
Madden, K., Middleton, P., Cyna, A. M., Matthewson, M., & Jones, L. (2016). Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016(5), Article CD009356. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009356.pub3
Tibble, D., & Brann, L. (2015). Obstetrics. In L. Brann, J. Owens, & A. Williamson (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary clinical hypnosis: Theory and practice (pp. 463-482). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119950905