Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Smith CA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6494625 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6513033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite high rates of women's use of intrapartum pain management techniques, little is known about the factors that influence such use.Examine the determinants associated with women's use of labour pain management.Cross-sectional survey of a substudy of women from the 'young' cohort of the Australian Longitudinal Study of Women's Health (ALSWH).Women aged 31-35 years who identified as being pregnant or recently given birth in the 2009 ALSWH survey (n = 2445) were recruited for the substudy. The substudy survey was completed by 1835 women (RR = 79.2%).Determinants examined included pregnancy health and maternity care [including complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)] for their most recent pregnancy and any previous pregnancies. Participants' attitudes and beliefs related to both CAM and maternity care were also included in the analysis.The outcome measures examined were the use of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain management techniques (NPMT).Differences were seen in the effects of demographics, health service utilization, health status, use of CAM, and attitudes and beliefs upon use of intrapartum pain management techniques across all categories. The only variable that was identified as a determinant for use of all types of pain management techniques was a previous caesarean section (CS).The effect of key determinants on women's use of pain management techniques differs significantly, and, other than CS, no one determinant is clearly influential in the use of all pain management options.
| S-EPMC5060859 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6478102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPain management is an integral part of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) following laparoscopic colonic resection. A variety of regional and neuraxial techniques were proposed, but their efficacy is still controversial. This systematic review evaluates published evidence on analgesic techniques and their impact on postoperative analgesia and recovery for laparoscopic colonic surgery patients.MethodsWe conducted bibliographic research on May 10, 2021, through PubMed, Cochrane database, and Google scholar. We retained meta-analysis and randomized clinical trials. We graded the strength of clinical data and subsequent recommendations according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.ResultsTwelve studies were included. Thoracic epidural analgesia improved postoperative analgesia and bowel function following laparoscopic colectomy. However, it lengthens the hospital stay. Transversus abdominis plane block was as effective as thoracic epidural analgesia concerning pain control but with better postoperative recovery and lower length of hospital stay. Moreover, Lidocaine intravenous infusion improved postoperative pain management and recovery; Quadratus lumborum block provided similar postoperative analgesia and recovery. Finally, wound infiltration reduced postoperative pain without improving recovery of bowel function, and it could be proposed as an alternative to thoracic epidural analgesia.ConclusionsSeveral analgesic techniques have been investigated. We found that abdominal wall blocks were as effective as thoracic epidural analgesia for pain management but with lower hospital stay and better recovery. We registered this review on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021279228).
| S-EPMC8648937 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: Effective pain management during labour is important because pain affects the birth experience. Epidural analgesia is effective but often it may not be possible; however, inhaled analgesia offers another option. Use of inhaled nitrous oxide and oxygen for pain management in labour is well established in obstetrics but is still not used much in Germany. This study aimed to investigate the acceptance of the inhaled analgesia of inhaled nitrous oxide and oxygen by midwives and pregnant women during labour. Material and Methods: In this observational study carried out between April and September 2013, a total of 66 pregnant women received inhaled nitrous oxide and oxygen during labour on request and after prior assessment of suitability. After the birth, all of the women and the responsible midwives were interviewed about their experience and satisfaction with the inhaled analgesia. Results: A statistically significant reduction of pain was achieved with nitrous oxide and oxygen. The inhaled analgesia was mostly used by women who refused epidural analgesia. The likelihood of using inhaled nitrous oxide and oxygen again was reported as higher for patients who tolerated it well (p?=?0.0129) and used it in the second stage of labour (p?=?0.0003) and when bearing down (p?=?0.0008). Conclusion: Inhaled nitrous oxide and oxygen is an effective method for pain management during labour and is accepted well by women in labour and by midwives.
| S-EPMC4119100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-pharmacological interventions hold promise in reducing labour pain, with minimal or no harm to the mother, foetus and the progress of labour and are simple and cost-effective. Yet their use has not been adequately explored in clinical settings, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsThis was a descriptive phenomenological study. Fifteen (15) nurses and midwives working in labour wards of two hospitals in Ghana were interviewed. Data analysis was guided by the principles of coding by Bailey and the constant comparative approach to generate themes. Ethics approval was obtained from the 37 Military Teaching Hospital Institutional Review Board in Ghana.ResultsThree major themes were identified that described the experiences of nurses and midwives regarding their use of non-pharmacological interventions in managing labour pain. These were familiarity with non-pharmacological interventions, perceived benefits of non-pharmacological interventions, and barriers to the use of non-pharmacological interventions in the management of labour pain.ConclusionsWhile some non-pharmacological pain management interventions were known and used by the nurses and midwives, they were not familiar with a good number of these interventions. Nurses and midwives perceived these interventions to be beneficial yet a number of barriers prevented easy utilisation.
| S-EPMC6518741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundModelling and analysing repeated measures data, such as women's experiences of pain during labour, is a complex topic. Traditional end-point analyses such as t-tests, ANOVA, or repeated measures [rANOVA] have known disadvantages. Modern and more sophisticated statistical methods such as mixed effect models provide flexibility and are more likely to draw correct conclusions from data. The aim of this study is to study how labour pain is analysed in repeated measures design studies, and to increase awareness of when and why modern statistical methods are suitable with the aim of encouraging their use in preference of traditional methods.MethodsSix databases were searched with the English language as a restriction. Study eligibility criteria included: Original studies published between 1999 and 2016, studying pregnant women in labour with the aim to compare at least two methods for labour pain management, with at least two measurements of labour pain separated by time, and where labour pain was analysed. After deduplication, all records (n?=?2800) were screened by one of the authors who excluded ineligible publication types, leaving 737 records remaining for full-text screening. A sample of 309 studies was then randomly selected and screened by both authors.ResultsAmong the 133 (of 309) studies that fulfilled the study eligibility criteria, 7% used mixed effect models, 20% rANOVA, and 73% used end-point analysis to draw conclusions regarding treatment effects for labour pain between groups. The most commonly used end-point analyses to compare groups regarding labour pain were t-tests (57, 43%) and ANOVA (41, 31%). We present a checklist for clinicians to clarify when mixed effect models should be considered as the preferred choice for analysis, in particular when labour pain is measured.ConclusionsStudies that aim to compare methods for labour pain management often use inappropriate statistical methods, and inaccurately report how the statistical analyses were carried out. The statistical methods used in analyses are often based on assumptions that are not fulfilled or described. We recommend that authors, reviewers, and editors pay greater attention to the analysis when designing and publishing studies evaluating methods for pain relief during labour.
| S-EPMC6286546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate three different analgesic techniques, continuous epidural analgesia (EA), continuous intra-articular (IA) infusion analgesia and continuous femoral nerve block (FNB) in postoperative pain management, length of hospital stay (LOS), and time of patient mobilization after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsSeventy-two patients undergoing TKA were randomly allocated into three groups according to the analgesic technique used for postoperative pain management. Group EA patients received epidural analgesia (control group), group IA received intra-articular infusion and group FNB received femoral nerve block.ResultsUpon analyzing the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores at rest, at passive and active movement, up to 3 days postoperatively, we observed no statistically significant differences at any time point among the three groups. Similarly, no association among these analgesic techniques (EA, IA, FNB) was revealed regarding LOS. However, significant differences emerged concerning the time of mobilization. Patients who received IA achieved earlier mobilization compared to FNB and EA.ConclusionsBoth IA and FNB generate similar analgesic effect with EA for postoperative pain management after TKA. However, IA appears to be significantly more effective in early mobilization compared to EA and FNB. Finally, no clinically important differences could be detected regarding LOS among the techniques studied.
| S-EPMC8020020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic pain is estimated to impact one-in-three children with cerebral palsy (CP). Psychological interventions including behavioral and cognitive strategies play a key role in chronic pain management, but there is a paucity of research exploring their use in children with CP.AimTo investigate the acceptability and feasibility of biofeedback assisted relaxation training (BART) for chronic pain management in children with CP using a mixed-methods study design.MethodsBiofeedback assisted relaxation training was delivered via BrightHearts, an iOS application. Inclusion criteria were as follows: CP; self-reported chronic pain; age 9-18 years; and fluent English speaker. Children used BrightHearts for ten minutes daily, over four weeks. Qualitative post-intervention interviews were undertaken (child, parent) and quantitative pre-post measures (child) were gathered including pain intensity (numerical rating scale), and anxiety intensity (numerical rating scale). Content analysis was conducted for qualitative data. Descriptive statistics and exploratory analyses were performed for quantitative data.ResultsTen children participated (n = 3 male, mean age = 13.1 years SD = 2.5 years, GMFCS level I = 4, II = 2, III = 3, IV = 1). Predominant movement disorder was spasticity (n = 7) and dyskinesia, mainly dystonia (n = 3). Content analysis suggested an overarching theme "BrightHearts is a good thing to put in my toolbox" providing an overall representation of participants' experiences. For many, BrightHearts was a valuable supplement to children's pain management strategies: "The source of the pain is still there, but the actual effect of the pain isn't so relevant." Four sub-themes were identified: "Managing my pain;" "Managing my anxiety and stress," "Helping me do what I need to do;" and "Fitting it into my life." Some participants reported improvements in their anxiety management, and others described benefits in sleep and school following improved pain/anxiety management. A range of practical and personal factors within this heterogeneous group presented barriers to using BrightHearts including limited time, attention, and boredom. Seven-out-of-eight children would recommend BrightHearts to others with chronic pain and six-out-of-eight noticed a difference in their pain since using BrightHearts (n = 2 missing data). Non-significant reductions in pain or anxiety intensity scores were found following the intervention.ConclusionThis pilot suggests BrightHearts is an acceptable and feasible intervention for chronic pain management in children with CP and may be useful for some children as part of a multimodal approach.
| S-EPMC8975200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Catheter-based regional analgesia has been proposed as an alternative to systemic analgesia for patients with multiple rib fractures (MRF). This study sought to compare the efficacy of regional techniques for decreasing pain and improving clinical outcomes. Study design: This was a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to four nonacademic trauma centers over two years (from 07/1/2014 to 06/30/2016). Study inclusion was MRF (≥3 fractures) with no other severe injuries. Two primary regional analgesia techniques were utilized and compared: continuous intercostal nerve blocks (CINB) and epidural (EPI) analgesia. The primary outcome, average pain scores on treatment, was examined using a repeated measures, linear regression mixed model. Secondary outcomes included hospital LOS, ICU LOS, ICU admission and hospital readmission, pulmonary complications, and incentive spirometry volumes during treatment, and were examined with univariate statistics. Results: There were 339 patients with isolated MRF; 85 (25%) required regional analgesia (CINB, n=41; EPI, n=44) and the remaining 75% received systemic analgesia only (IV, n=195; PO, n=59). There were demographic and clinical differences between regional analgesia and systemic analgesia groups; on the contrary, there were no demographic or clinical differences between the CINB and EPI groups. Adjusted pain scores were similar for the EPI and CINB groups (4.0 vs 4.4, p=0.49). Secondary outcomes were worse in the EPI group compared to the CINB group: less improvement in incentive spirometry volume (p=0.004), longer ICU LOS (p=0.03), longer hospital LOS (p<0.001), and more ICU admission (p<0.001). Conclusion: In patients requiring regional analgesia, pain management was equivalent with CINB and EPI, but CINB was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes. CINB might offer an efficient alternative for pain control in patients with MRF.
| S-EPMC6538881 | biostudies-other