24h-payday

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Systematic Review’

Cochrane Systematic Review Supports Lamaze Healthy Birth Practice #2- Walk, Move Around And Change Positions Throughout Labor

December 19th, 2013 by avatar
Image Source: © Sharon Muza

Image Source: © Sharon Muza

Today, author Henci Goer takes a look at a new Cochrane Systematic Review; “Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour” and finds that the results of this review support the 2nd Lamaze International Healthy Birth Practice: Walk, move around and change positions throughout labor. Families taking Lamaze childbirth classes learn how they can promote physiologic birth by using a variety of positions throughout their labor, but women don’t have to take a childbirth class to know that walking and trying different positions reduces pain and speeds up labor.  Intuitively, women respond to the needs of their baby and their body during labor.  Henci examines the review and shares some of the benefits that were found in the women who followed the 2nd Healthy Birth Practice to promote safe and healthy birth. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager.

Advocates for physiologic care in labor will be pleased, although not surprised, to know that a Cochrane systematic review supports mobility and upright positioning in first-stage labor (the cervical dilation phase) (Lawrence 2013.) The review includes 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 3337 women not having epidurals at trial entry and 7 trials comprising 1881 women in which all participants had epidurals or combined spinal-epidurals at trial entry.

The body of data poses challenges in analysis and interpretation. Trials were published between 1963 and 2012 and conducted in 13 countries. As reviewers note, this means that they took place in highly varied cultural and healthcare contexts, equally varied expectations on the part of staff and laboring women, and with evolving healthcare technologies, all of which could influence results. In addition, comparison “treatment” and “control” groups also varied widely and overlapped among them. So, for example, one trial compared walking with remaining in bed in whatever posture, including upright postures; another compared walking with recumbent postures; and still another combined sitting and walking as upright postures and compared them with recumbent postures. That being said, here is what the reviewers found:

Compared with recumbent postures and bed care, upright postures and walking in women without epidurals at trial entry:

• Shortened first-stage labor duration by a mean difference of 1 hour 22 minutes in women overall (15 trials, 2503 women) and by 1 hour 13 minutes in first-time mothers (12 trials, 1486 women). In women with prior births (4 trials, 662 women), duration differed by only 34 minutes, and the difference just missed achieving statistical significance, that is, statistical analysis shows that the difference is unlikely to be due to chance. By comparison, rupturing membranes, commonly used to “get the show on the road,” had no effect on first-stage duration in women overall (5 trials, 1127 women) (Smyth 2013), and too few women were reported according to first-time or prior births to draw meaningful conclusions.

• Decreased likelihood of cesarean delivery (14 trials, 2682 women) by 30%. Likelihood decreased by 20% in first-time mothers (8 trials, 1237 women) and 40% in women with prior births (4 trials, 775 women), but the differences didn’t achieve statistical significance probably because aggregated numbers were too small (underpowered) and cesarean rates too low to detect a difference. By contrast, rupturing membranes increases the likelihood of cesarean surgery by 30%, a risk that misses achieving statistical significance by a whisker and probably would have achieved significance had not so many women assigned to “conserve membranes” actually had their membranes ruptured (Smyth 2013).

• Reduced use of epidural analgesia (9 trials, 2107 women) by 20%.

• Didn’t increase satisfaction or decrease complaints of pain, but only one small study (107 women) measured satisfaction, and among the three trials (338 women) evaluating pain, women reported less pain in two of them, but in the third (201 women), which comprised 60% of the population overall, participants assigned to sit or walk were not allowed to lie down at any time during first stage. Bloom et al. (1998), by far the largest of any of the trials at 1067 participants, wasn’t included in the pain and satisfaction assessments probably because they took a different approach. They asked women who walked whether they would want to walk in a future labor. Ninety-nine percent said “Yes,” which would seem a ringing endorsement of ambulation.

• Showed no evidence of increasing maternal, fetal, or neonatal harm. In fact, one small trial (200 women) reported significantly fewer admissions to neonatal intensive care.

Benefits were maintained when subgroupings of upright postures were compared with subgroupings of recumbent postures, as for example, walking compared with recumbent/supine/lateral or sitting and standing, squatting, kneeling, or walking compared with recumbent/supine/lateral.

No benefits were found for walking or upright postures (7 trials, 1881 women) in women who had epidurals or combined spinal-epidurals at trial entry. This doesn’t really mean much, though, because in some trials, substantial percentages of women assigned to walk didn’t actually do so, and in others “ambulation” was defined to be as little as 5 minutes of walking per hour.

The review leaves some questions open: Can mobility be used to treat delayed progress? Should women with ruptured membranes be allowed to walk? What about women at risk for fetal compromise? To the first question, it makes sense to encourage walking and upright positioning as a first-line measure to treat progress delay. The alternatives, rupturing membranes and oxytocin augmentation, have potential harms while walking and position changes don’t. To the second, when upright, gravity would tend to bring the presenting part downward to block the cervical opening, thereby protecting against umbilical cord prolapse. A common sense approach might be to monitor fetal heart tones throughout a contraction upon the woman first assuming an upright position and repeat whenever she returns to an upright position after lying down. To the last question, studies would need to be done, but rupturing membranes increases risk of fetal compromise by releasing the fluid that prevents umbilical cord compression (you can’t compress a liquid), and augmentation increases contraction intensity, which also could increase risk of compromise in a vulnerable fetus.

The true benefits of mobility are almost certainly much greater than the review shows. This is because RCTs are analyzed according to “intent to treat,” that is, participants are kept with their assigned group regardless of their actual treatment. To do otherwise would negate the point of random assignment, which is to avoid bias; however, when substantial percentages of participants receive the treatment of the other group, as is the case with many of the mobility RCTs, it both diminishes differences between groups and makes it harder to detect a significant difference between them. This was a problem in all the mobility RCTs, not just the ones where women already had regional analgesia on board. Again, take Bloom et al. (1998): among women assigned to walk, 22%—approaching 1 in 4—never walked at all, and of the women who did, the mean time spent out of bed was an hour mostly because of policies that kept them in, or returned them to, bed.

The reviewers conclude:

[W]e believe wherever possible, women should be informed of the benefits of upright positions, encouraged and supported to take up whatever positions they choose, they should not have their freedom of movement options restricted unless clinically indicated, and they should avoid spending long periods supine (p. 23).

It isn’t enough, though, to advise women that it’s a good idea to stay mobile and stay off their backs unless staff follow through on not restricting freedom of movement. As matters currently stand, conventional hospital labor management couldn’t do a better job of restricting mobility if that were its intended goal. To turn that around, hospitals would need to:

• Provide an environment conducive to mobility, including ample space for moving around and props such as birth balls, rocking chairs, and cushions,

• Provide comfort measures such as hot and cold packs, private showers, and soaking tubs to reduce and delay use of epidural analgesia,

• Train staff in encouraging and providing physical assistance in changing positions, in the use of mobility props, and in how to provide emotionally supportive care,

• Welcome doulas who can share the burden of providing physical and emotional support,

• Use intermittent listening to fetal heart tones except when continuous monitoring is medically indicated,

• Reserve IVs for medical indications, which would mean allowing women oral intake of fluids and calories, and

• When mobility-inhibiting interventions are required or the woman desires an epidural, minimize their impact by such measures as telemetry monitoring, inserting IV catheters in the forearm rather than the hand or wrist or using saline locks instead of IVs, and encouraging women with epidurals to assume upright positions and change positions periodically.

In other words, promoting mobility in labor is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Floating below is the vast bulk of providing physiologic care. That won’t be easy for a number of reasons.

For one thing, medical research principles require that investigators define the intervention under evaluation precisely and maximize compliance with its administration. But this is the direct opposite of women doing what instinctively feels best in an environment that encourages their experimentation and is free from elements that inhibit or restrict them. We have no trials that compare this style of care with conventional medical-model management, which means we don’t have data showing the true degree of harm arising from confining and circumscribing mobility in labor or the magnitude of the benefits to be gained with promoting it. Without that knowledge, there is little incentive to change.

For another, in the topsy-turvy world of medical-model research, maternal movements and physiologically normal behaviors are framed as “interventions.” This means that being up and around and having the freedom to labor in the positions of the woman’s choice has to prove itself, not confinement to bed and positioning restriction. What is more, to institute change, the “intervention” must prove itself superior according to medical model concepts of improved outcomes, or conventional management stands, however much that management lacks an evidence basis. This explains how Bloom and colleagues could entitle their trial “Lack of effect of walking on labor and delivery” despite walking having no harms and 99% of women who walked wanting to do so again in a future labor.

Finally, powerful forces line up against instituting the sweeping changes that would be required to convert to mobility-friendly care. Inertia is one. People will generally resist change even when it benefits them personally, which in this case it doesn’t. Economics is another. The costs of maintaining a 24/7 obstetric analgesia service demand that most women have epidurals while any renovation expenses, such as providing private showers, soaking tubs, or telemetry monitoring, would not be reimbursed. Hospital culture is perhaps the biggest obstacle of all. “This is the way we’ve always done it” and “what is must be right” are potent impediments to improvement. Specifically, so long as reducing cesarean rates isn’t a shared, strongly-held goal—and a cursory glance at hospital cesarean rates shows that it isn’t in most hospitals—motivation to change will be low.

All of this is to say that reform won’t be easy, not that it can’t be done, and, I would add, the wellbeing of mothers and babies obliges us to try. In that interest, can we crowd source strategies? Are any hospitals in your community mobility friendly? What are their practices and policies? Have any of you been involved in projects to increase mobility in labor, and if so, what went well and what would you do differently?

References

Bloom, S. L., McIntire, D. D., Kelly, M. A., Beimer, H. L., Burpo, R. H., Garcia, M. A., & Leveno, K. J. (1998). Lack of effect of walking on labor and delivery. N Engl J Med, 339(2), 76-79. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9654537?dopt=Citation

Lawrence, A., Lewis, L., Hofmeyr, G. J., & Styles, C. (2013). Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10, CD003934. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003934.pub4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24105444

Smyth, R. M., Markham, C., & Dowswell, T. (2013). Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 6, CD006167. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006167.pub4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23780653

 

Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, New Research, Push for Your Baby, Research , , , , , ,

Does the Hospital “Admission Strip” Conducted on Women in Labor Work as Hoped?

October 3rd, 2013 by avatar

The 20 minute electronic fetal monitoring strip is a “right of passage” for any woman being admitted to the hospital in labor.  But is this automatic 20 minute strip evidence based?  Regular Science & Sensibility contributor Henci Goer takes a look at a recent Cochrane systematic review and lets us know what the research says.  Do you discuss this with your students?  Do you share about this practice  in your classes and with your patients and students?  What do you tell them? Will it change after reading Henci’s review below? – Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Community Manager

______________________

© http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcarter

Some weeks ago, I did a Science and Sensibility post summarizing the latest version of the Cochrane systematic review of continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM)—AKA cardiotocography (CTG)—in labor versus intermittent listening. A couple of commenters on that post asked if I would tackle the “admission strip,” the common practice of doing EFM for 20 minutes or so at hospital admission in labor to see whether ongoing continuous monitoring is warranted.

I was in luck because the Cochrane Library has a recent systematic review of randomized controlled trials of this practice versus intermittent listening in women at low risk for fetal hypoxia (Devane 2012). The rationale for the admission strip, as the reviewers explain, is that pregnancy risk factors don’t predict all babies who will experience morbidity or mortality in labor. The admission strip is an attempt to identify women free of risk factors whose babies nevertheless might benefit from closer monitoring. Let’s see whether the admission strip succeeds at identifying those babies and improving their outcomes.

As to whether the admission strip identifies babies believed to be in need of closer surveillance, the answer is “yes.” Pooled analysis (meta-analysis) of the trials found that 15 more women per 100 allocated to the admission strip group went on to have continuous EFM (3 trials, 10,753 women), and 3 more babies per 100 underwent fetal blood sampling (3 trials, 10,757 babies).

Furthermore, women almost certainly underwent more cesareans as well (4 trials, 11,338 women). All four trials reported more cesareans in the admission strip group. The pooled increased risk of 20% just missed achieving statistical significance, but this is probably because cesarean rates were so low, only 3 to 4% in by far the biggest trial, which contributed 8056 participants. Because of the lack of heterogeneity among trials, the reviewers think the difference is likely to be real. If it is, then using an admission strip in low-risk women results in 1 additional cesarean for every 136 women monitored continuously (number needed to harm). I would add that not separating out first-time mothers, who are at greater risk for cesarean delivery, probably masked a bigger effect in this subgroup. How big an effect might this be?  Let’s assume a 9% cesarean rate in low-risk first-time mothers, that being the rate found  in first-time mothers still eligible for home birth at labor onset in the Birthplace in England study (2011). At this cesarean rate, a 20% increase over baseline would calculate to 1 additional cesarean for every 55 first-time mothers monitored continuously.

The crucial question, though, is whether increased monitoring and surgical deliveries produced better perinatal outcomes. To that, the answer is “no.” Combined fetal and neonatal death rates in infants free of congenital anomalies were identical at 1 per 1000 in both groups (4 trials, 11,339 babies). The reviewers acknowledge that their meta-analysis of over 11,000 babies is still “underpowered,” i.e., too small to detect a difference in outcomes. However, they continue, the event is so rare in low-risk women that no trial or meta-analysis would likely be big enough to do so. Additionally, no differences were found for cases of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (1 trial, 2367 babies), admissions to neonatal intensive care (4 trials, 11,331 babies), neonatal seizure (1 trial, 8056 babies), evidence of multi-organ compromise within the first 24 hours (1 trial, 8056 babies), or even 5-minute Apgar scores less than 7 (4 trials, 11,324 babies).

The reviewers therefore conclude:

We found no evidence of benefit for the use of the admission CTG for low-risk women on admission in labour. Furthermore, the probability is that admission CTG increases the caesarean section rate by approximately 20%. . . . The findings of this review support recommendations that the admission CTG not be used for women who are low risk on admission in labour. Women should be informed that admission CTG is likely associated with an increase in the incidence of caesarean section without evidence of benefit (Devane 2012, p. 2). [Emphasis mine.]

Conclusion

According to the best evidence, the admission strip isn’t just ineffective, it’s harmful, and its use should be abandoned

References

Birthplace in England Collaborative Group. (2011). Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ, 343, d7400.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22117057?dopt=Citation

Devane, D., Lalor, J. G., Daly, S., McGuire, W., & Smith, V. (2012). Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, CD005122. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005122.pub4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336808

Childbirth Education, Do No Harm, Evidence Based Medicine, Fetal Monitoring, Guest Posts, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Metaanalyses, New Research, Research, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

Happy 20th Anniversary to the Cochrane Collaboration!

January 15th, 2013 by avatar

As I wrote about in my January 3rd, 2012 post on the top 10 reasons to join Lamaze International, one of the great benefits of being a Lamaze member is complete access to the Cochrane Collaboration.  The Cochrane Collaboration is an international organization whose purpose is to make available information on the effects of healthcare interventions.  Reports in the form of Cochrane Reviews are current, accurate and made available electronically on the internet and by DVD, and updated monthly.  Systematic reviews are conducted and published on a wide variety of healthcare interventions so that people can make informed decisions. This is stored in the Cochrane Library.

Archie Cochrane, photo credit: Cardiff University. Library, Cochrane Archive, University. Hospital Llandough

The Cochrane Collaboration was founded by Archie Cochrane, who was a British medical researcher.  Mr. Cochrane is best known for his article Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services written in 1972.  

The creation of a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) of care during pregnancy and childbirth is “a real milestone in the history of randomised trials and in the evaluation of care.” Professor Archibald Leman Cochrane, CBE FRCP FFCM, (1909 – 1988)

The Cochrane Collaboration is celebrating their 20th anniversary this year, 2013 and will be sharing a series of 24 short videos over the course of the anniversary year, focusing on the ideas, achievements and people that have been part of the history of this international and well-respected organization.  I am sharing the first in this series, so you can learn a bit more about how this organization came to be recognized as the gold standard in evidence-based health care.

The United States Cochrane Center has created and made available free of charge, an online tutorial, “Understanding Evidence-based Healthcare: A Foundation for Action, that can help you to learn how to best navigate and understand the resources contained in the Cochrane Library.

Lamaze International’s Healthy Birth Practice Tools is completely based on evidence based information and was created so that consumers could understand and advocate for the best care for themselves and their babies.  Lamaze recognizes the importance of educators and others having access to up to date information and therefore is pleased to offer access to the Cochrane Library as a member benefit.   To access the Cochrane Library as a Lamaze member, first login to Lamaze International’s Member Center and then follow the drop down box to the Cochrane Library. You will be redirected to the library, with full access.

I rely on and use this member benefit constantly, and appreciate it being made available to me by Lamaze.  Won’t you share in the comments section how you use the Cochrane Library?  How has it helped you?  Do you find what you need?  Do you share information and studies with your students, clients and patients?  Let us know, please.

References 

Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency. Random Reflections on Health Services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972. (Reprinted in 1989 in association with the BMJ, Reprinted in 1999 for Nuffield Trust by the Royal Society of Medicine Press, London (ISBN 1-85315-394-X)

Childbirth Education, Continuing Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, informed Consent, Lamaze International, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research, Practice Guidelines, Research, Systematic Review , , , , , , , , ,

Science And Sensibility; Words To Live By

May 14th, 2012 by avatar

Science is simply common sense at its best.  ~Thomas Huxley

Science.  Sensibility.  Science and sensibility are good words.  I gravitate to these words naturally.  These words offer me security, comfort and a feeling of order in the world.  I am delighted and honored to be the new Community Manager for Lamaze International’s Science and Sensibility blog and every time I think of the name of the blog I smile, because it feels like coming home.  It defines what I think is important in the work that I do as a childbirth educator and doula.

Science and sensibility is the crux of why I became a Lamaze certified childbirth educator.  The foundation of Lamaze and the principles that guide the work of this blog and of the entire Lamaze organization are built on quality research.  I am proud when I teach The Six Lamaze Healthy Birth Practices in my own classes and I can share the citations that support each practice.  This is the kind of information that should guide informed decision-making by the families that we work with and research that should guide protocols and practice by the health care providers who families trust to care for them during the childbearing year.

I just finished teaching a three day Passion for Birth childbirth educator workshop working with men and women who are on the path to becoming Lamaze certified childbirth educators.  During the workshop, we dedicate time to discuss research.  What makes a good study?  What are reliable sources for information?  How to understand the research?  Vocabulary words like “peer reviewed” and “randomized controlled trial” and other terms are discussed.  We want new educators to feel comfortable looking at research, understanding research and being able to apply current information in their classes as they work with new families.  The workshop attendees often state that they are intimidated, scared and confused about interpreting a research study.  They are not sure how to jump in or what to look for.  Here’s where this blog, Science and Sensibility, can really shine!  Science and Sensibility can help take the mystery out of reading the current research and help new educators, experienced educators, other professionals and interested parents to feel confident about understanding articles and research that impacts new families.

 The purpose of this blog, since it’s inception, has been to highlight current research on pregnancy, maternity care, birth, parenting and breastfeeding topics.  To share important studies, to break them down, provide a common-sense approach to the material, which is often covered in rather technical terms.  And this…this, is what really makes me feel good.  This mission is what makes me absolutely thrilled to be in the role of Community Manager.  To follow in the footsteps of the previous Community Managers, Amy Romano and Kimmelin Hull, who have worked hard to bring you the research, to highlight important studies and to demonstrate how Lamaze supports and incorporates this information and makes it available to educators, parents and the community at large in the work that it does as a leader in the childbirth education arena promoting normal birth.

My goals for this blog are to:

  • Continue to profile current research.
  • Present research in a matter of fact way with resources for when you want more information.
  • Bring you guest bloggers who are experts in their field, inviting them to share their expertise.
  • Reach out to the investigators themselves, in order to get the inside scoop on the research.
  • Help you to learn more about the leaders and organizations that are on the front lines of improving care for mothers and their babies.
  • Recognize that issues of pregnancy, birth and parenting are global in nature.
  • Follow the science and make it understandable and relevant to you.
  • Do all of this in entertaining, enjoyable ways.

I invite you to participate with me on this journey. I call on you to share your thoughts, ask your questions, and suggest topics to be explored.  Consider contributing your own ideas by becoming a guest blogger. Let me know who you want to hear from and what you want to know more about.  This blog belongs to all of us and requires the participation of many to make it as rich and successful as it has been and can continue to be.  I am excited about the possibilities and opportunities that await me and all of us.  Together, we can be sure that the science is understandable and that future educators embrace the opportunity to comprehend important research, discuss with others and share with families.

Let’s begin!

 

 

 

Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Healthy Birth Practices, informed Consent, Maternity Care, Practice Guidelines, Research, Science & Sensibility, Systematic Review , , , , , , , ,

Pain Management for Women in Labor: A Research Review

April 11th, 2012 by avatar

As a childbirth professional or an expectant parent, do you wonder about the multitude of pain management techniques offered for childbirth?

As part of the Cochrane Collaboration, Leanne Jones and eight of her colleagues (2012) has published new research synthesizing divergent data constructs and summarizing 355 trials on pain management during childbirth. There are many detailed data tables associated with this study.

To view the entire study, Lamaze members can access the full Cochrane Library, via the Members Only Section.

A summary of the study is below.

Background

In 2007, the Cochrane Pregnancy & Childbirth Group (PCG) consumer’s group identified pain relief in childbirth as the topic of most importance to them.

This study was funded to provide an evidence-based summary of the efficacy and safety of pain management methods in childbirth for consumers, policy-makers, and childbirth educators.

Women experience pain in childbirth in varying degrees of intensity, influenced by physiological and psychosocial factors. Most women require some type of pain relief. Both non-pharmacological and pharmacological methods are used for pain management.

312 Studies Reviewed

Collecting the totality of evidence from existing randomized controlled trials, the researchers identified 18 total systematic reviews for inclusion in their study. 15 reviews were Cochrane reviews (257 included trials) and 3 were non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials). Data from a total of 312 studies were reviewed in this study.

There were more studies of pharmacological interventions than non-pharmacological interventions.

13 Outcomes Identified for Inclusion

The researchers, in partnership with the PCG consumer group, identified these outcomes for inclusion in the study.

Effects of interventions

  • Pain intensity (as defined by trialists)
  • Satisfaction with pain relief (as defined by trialists)
  • Sense of control in labor (as defined by trialists)
  • Satisfaction with childbirth experience (as defined by trialists)

Safety of interventions

  • Effect (negative) on mother/baby interaction
  • Breastfeeding (at specified time points)
  • Assisted vaginal birth
  • Cesarean section
  • Adverse effects (for women & babies)
  • Admission to special care baby unit / NICU
  • Apgar score less than at five minutes
  • Poor infant outcomes at long-term follow-up (as defined by trialists)

15 Childbirth Management Methods Identified

The researchers identified a list of 15 childbirth pain management methods:

  • placebo/no treatment
  • hypnosis
  • biofeedback
  • intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection
  • immersion in water
  • aromatherapy
  • relaxation techniques (yoga, music, audio)
  • acupuncture or acupressure
  • massage, reflexology or manual methods
  • TENS
  • inhaled analgesia
  • opioid
  • non-opioid drugs
  • local anesthetic nerve blocks
  • epidural

 As a Lamaze childbirth educator, how will you incorporate respect for your client’s individual decisions while presenting the Six Lamaze Healthy Birth Practices?

Results: Non-pharmacological Studies

The authors found that non-pharmacological methods are mostly used in midwife-led continuity of care births and/or where women had continuous intrapartum support. Such non-pharmacological methods are meant to break the fear-pain-tension cycle and to work within the pain paradigm. The pain paradigm of birth is a philosophy based on the idea that pain is a normal part of the physiology of labor and that women can use coping methods to manage the pain (Leap, 2008; as cited in Jones et al, 2012).

The researchers found the evidence for many non-pharmacological methods to be mostly incomplete as there is an average of only two studies for each method.

However, the following non-pharmacological methods are shown to provide pain relief and positive maternal psychological outcomes without invasive side effects: immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture/acupressure and massage.

In addition, women report greater emotional satisfaction with childbirth when using immersion and relaxation. With the use of relaxation and acupuncture/acupressure, there is a decrease in the use of forceps and ventouse. There is a decrease in the amount of cesarean section associated with the use of acupuncture/acupressure.

The researchers report there is insufficient evidence to report on pain relief using the following methods: hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy and TENS.

Results: Pharmacological Studies

There are more studies of pharmacological methods versus non-pharmacological methods. The authors found that pharmacological methods relieve pain and have side effects.

Pharmacological methods are most likely to be used in settings with a pain relief paradigm. In the pain relief paradigm of labor, pain is considered barbaric, the benefits of analgesia outweigh the risks, and women should be free to use whatever pain relief methods she wishes, without guilt (Leap, 2008; as cited in Jones et al, 2012).

Comparative Pain Relief & Side Effects

Epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled nitrous oxide & oxygen relieve pain better when compared to opioids (Jones et al, 2012).

Epidurals are associated with an increase of the use of forceps or ventouse, an increase in the risk of low blood pressure, low motor blocks, fever and urine retention (Amin-Somanuh, 2005; as cited in Jones et al, 2012). In addition, other side effects such as shivering, tinnitus, and respiratory or cardiovascular depression may occur. The authors state it is uncertain whether the use of epidurals interfere with breastfeeding (Reynolds, 2011; as cited in Jones et al, 2012).

Combined spinal epidurals (CSE) provide faster pain relief than traditional epidurals, but are associated with more feelings of itchiness, giddiness, sweating, and tingling (Jones et al, 2012).

Inhaled nitrous oxide is associated with minimal toxicity and rapid maternal and neonate elimination, but can cause feelings of nausea, drowsiness and sickness (KNOV, 2009; Rosen, 2002; as cited in Jones et al, 2012).

Non-opioid drugs (acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS)) relieve pain for shorter periods of time as compared to opioid drugs (Bayarski, Hebbes, 200; as cited in Jones et al, 2012).

Opioid drugs (morphine, nalbuphine, fentanyl, parenteral and pethidine) are used worldwide. Parenteral opioids are reported to provide less pain relief than epidurals. Side-effects include impaired maternal capacity for decision-making, sedation, hypoventilation, hypotension and urine retention. Opioids readily cross the placenta, thus neonatal respiratory depression and hypothermia are also concerns. Pethidine is shown to affect fetal heart rate variability during labor (Sekhavat, 2009; Solt, 2002; as cited in Jones et al, 2012), thus continuous fetal monitoring is recommended. Neonatal effects are inhibited and early cessation of breastfeeding and decreased alertness (Nissen, 1995; Ransjo-Arvidsen, 2001; Righard, 1990; Rajan, 1994; as cited in Jones et al, 2012).

Limitations Found in the Studies

The authors state the studies use differing methods to measure pain management outcomes. Many do not at all measure maternal psychological outcomes (feelings of intrinsic self-control), mom-baby interaction, or breastfeeding and infant outcomes.

Conclusions

This study shows consumers rate pain management as a high priority in childbirth, however, after 30 years of research, standardized pain management and outcome measurements have not been created.

The authors suggest their outcome guidelines, developed with consumer input, be adopted for use in future research.

Overall, women should feel free to choose whatever methods of pain relief they wish, both non-pharmacological and pharmacological, for their individual childbirth experience.

As part of a childbirth preparation program, women should be informed of the efficacy and potential side-effects on both themselves and their babies of non-pharmacological and pharmacological methods of pain relief for childbirth.

Hopefully this study will generate an effort to standardize the constructs associated with research of measurements of pain management in labor, maternal psychosocial satisfaction, and maternal-baby outcomes.

References

Jones L, Othman M, Dowswell T, Alfirevic Z, Gates S, Newburn M, Jordan S, Lavender T, Neilson JP. Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD009234. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009234.pub2

Babies, Cesarean Birth, Do No Harm, Epidural Analgesia, Evidence Based Medicine, Fetal Monitoring, Healthy Birth Practices, informed Consent, Medical Interventions, Midwifery, New Research, News about Pregnancy, Pain Management, Practice Guidelines, Research , , , , , , , , ,