How do midwives facilitate women to give birth during physiological second stage of labour? A protocol for a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Verhoeven CJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6317258 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
How do midwives facilitate women to give birth during physiological second stage of labour? A protocol for a systematic review.
Verhoeven Corine J CJ Spence Dale D Nyman Viola V Otten René H J RHJ Healy Maria M
Systematic reviews 20190103 1
<h4>Background</h4>Midwives' practices during the second stage of labour vary nationally and internationally. We aim to retrieve evidence that supports high-quality intrapartum care by conducting a systematic review of the literature.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic bibliographic databases including PubMed, EMBASE.com , Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care Database (through MIDIRS), and The Cochrane Library will be searched to identify ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Both nationally and internationally, midwives' practices during the second stage of labour vary. A midwife's practice can be influenced by education and cultural practices but ultimately it should be informed by up-to-date scientific evidence. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to retrieve evidence that supports high quality intrapartum care during the second stage of labour. A systematic literature search was performed to September 2019 in collaboration with a medical information specialist. Bibliographic databases searched included: PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care Database and The Cochrane Library, resulting in 6,382 references to be screened after duplicates were removed. Articles were then assessed for quality by two independent researchers and data extracted. 17 studies focusing on midwives' practices during physiological second stage of labour were included. Two studies surveyed midwives regarding their practice and one study utilising focus groups explored how midwives facilitate women's birthing positions, while another focus group study explored expert midwives' views of their practice of preserving an intact perineum during physiological birth. The remainder of the included studies were primarily intervention studies, highlighting aspects of midwifery practice during the second stage of labour. The empirical findings were synthesised into four main themes namely: birthing positions, non-pharmacological pain relief, pushing techniques and optimising perineal outcomes; the results were outlined and discussed. By implementing this evidence midwives may enable women during the second stage of labour to optimise physiological processes to give birth. There is, however, a dearth of evidence relating to midwives' practice, which provides a positive experience for women during the second stage of labour. Perhaps this is because not all midwives' practices during the second stage of labour are researched and documented. This systematic review provides a valuable insight of the empirical evidence relating to midwifery practice during the physiological second stage of labour, which can also inform education and future research. The majority of the authors were members of the EU COST Action IS1405: Building Intrapartum Research Through Health (BIRTH). The study protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; Registration CRD42018088300) and is published (Verhoeven, Spence, Nyman, Otten, Healy, 2019).
| S-EPMC7386622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere has been a renewed interest in the place of birth, including intended home birth, for low risk women. In the absence of adequately-sized randomised controlled trials, a recent Cochrane review recommended that a systematic review and meta-analysis, including observational studies, be undertaken to inform this topic. The objective of this review is to determine if women intending at the onset of labour to give birth at home are more or less likely to experience a foetal or neonatal loss compared to a cohort of women who are comparable to the home birth cohort on the absence of risk factors but who intend to give birth in a hospital setting.MethodsWe will search using Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED and the Cochrane Library to find studies published since 1990 that compare foetal, neonatal and maternal outcomes for women who intended at the onset of labour to give birth at home to a comparison cohort of low risk women who intended at the onset of labour to give birth in hospital. We will obtain pooled estimates of effect using Review Manager. Because of the likelihood of differences in outcomes in settings where home birth is integrated into the health care system, we will stratify our results according to jurisdictions that have a health care system that integrates home birth and those where home birth is provided outside the usual health care system. Since parity is known to be associated with birth outcomes, only studies that take parity into account will be included in the meta-analyses. We will provide results by parity to the extent possible.Systematic review registrationThis protocol was registered with PROSPERO at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/Prospero/ (Registration number: CRD42013004046).
| S-EPMC4046441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe previously concluded that risk of stillbirth, neonatal mortality or morbidity is not different whether birth is intended at home or hospital. Here, we compare the occurrence of birth interventions and maternal outcomes among low-risk women who begin labour intending to birth at home compared to women intending to birth in hospital.MethodsWe used our registered protocol (PROSPERO, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk, No.CRD42013004046) and searched five databases from 1990-2018. Using R, we obtained pooled estimates of effect (accounting for study design, study setting and parity).Findings16 studies provided data from ~500,000 intended home births for the meta-analyses. There were no reported maternal deaths. When controlling for parity in well-integrated settings we found women intending to give birth at home compared to hospital were less likely to experience: caesarean section OR 0.58(0.44,0.77); operative vaginal birth OR 0.42(0.23,0.76); epidural analgesia OR 0.30(0.24,0.38); episiotomy OR 0.45(0.28,0.73); 3rd or 4th degree tear OR 0.57(0.43,0.75); oxytocin augmentation OR 0.37(0.26,0.51) and maternal infection OR 0.23(0.15,0.35). Pooled results for postpartum haemorrhage showed women intending home births were either less likely or did not differ from those intending hospital birth [OR 0.66(0.54,0.80) and RR 1.30(0.79,2.13) from 2 studies that could not be pooled with the others]. Similar results were found when data were stratified by parity and by degree of integration into health systems.InterpretationAmong low-risk women, those intending to birth at home experienced fewer birth interventions and untoward maternal outcomes. These findings along with earlier work reporting neonatal outcomes inform families, health care providers and policy makers around the safety of intended home births.FundingPartial funding: Association of Ontario Midwives open peer reviewed grant.
| S-EPMC7136633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUterine fundal pressure involves a birth attendant pushing on the woman's uterine fundus to assist vaginal birth. It is used in some clinical settings, though guidelines recommend against it. This systematic review aimed to determine the prevalence of uterine fundal pressure during the second stage of labour for women giving birth vaginally at health facilities.MethodsThe population of interest were women who experienced labour in a health facility and in whom vaginal birth was anticipated. The primary outcome was the use of fundal pressure during second stage of labour. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Global Index Medicus databases were searched for eligible studies published from 1 January 2000 onwards. Meta-analysis was conducted to determine a pooled prevalence, with subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity.ResultsEighty data sets from 76 studies (n = 898,544 women) were included, reporting data from 22 countries. The prevalence of fundal pressure ranged from 0.6% to 69.2% between studies, with a pooled prevalence of 23.2% (95% CI 19.4-27.0, I2 = 99.97%). There were significant differences in prevalence between country income level (p < 0.001, prevalence highest in lower-middle income countries) and method of measuring use of fundal pressure (p = 0.001, prevalence highest in studies that measured fundal pressure based on women's self-report).ConclusionsThe use of uterine fundal pressure on women during vaginal birth in health facilities is widespread. Efforts to prevent this potentially unnecessary and harmful practice are needed.
| S-EPMC8132352 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:More women are choosing to birth at home in well-resourced countries. Concerns persist that out-of-hospital birth contributes to higher perinatal and neonatal mortality. This systematic review and meta-analyses determines if risk of fetal or neonatal loss differs among low-risk women who begin labour intending to give birth at home compared to low-risk women intending to give birth in hospital. Methods:In April 2018 we searched five databases from 1990 onward and used R to obtain pooled estimates of effect. We stratified by study design, study settings and parity. The primary outcome is any perinatal or neonatal death after the onset of labour. The study protocol is peer-reviewed, published and registered (PROSPERO No.CRD42013004046). Findings:We identified 14 studies eligible for meta-analysis including ~ 500,000 intended home births. Among nulliparous women intending a home birth in settings where midwives attending home birth are well-integrated in health services, the odds ratio (OR) of perinatal or neonatal mortality compared to those intending hospital birth was 1.07 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.65); and in less integrated settings 3.17 (95% CI, 0.73 to 13.76). Among multiparous women intending a home birth in well-integrated settings, the estimated OR compared to those intending a hospital birth was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.38); and in less integrated settings was 1.58 (95% CI, 0.50 to 5.03). Interpretation:The risk of perinatal or neonatal mortality was not different when birth was intended at home or in hospital. Funding:Partial funding: Association of Ontario Midwives open peer reviewed grant. Research in Context:Evidence before this study Although there is increasing acceptance for intended home birth as a choice for birthing women, controversy about its safety persists. The varying responses of obstetrical societies to intended home birth provide evidence of contrasting views. A Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials addressing this topic included one small trial and noted that in the absence of adequately sized randomised controlled trials on the topic of intended home compared to intended hospital birth, a peer reviewed protocol be published to guide a systematic review and meta-analysis including observational studies. Reviews to date have been limited by design or methodological issues and none has used a protocol published a priori.Added value of this study Individual studies are underpowered to detect small but potentially important differences in rare outcomes. This study uses a published peer-reviewed protocol and is the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing outcomes of intended home and hospital birth. We take study design, parity and jurisdictional support for home birth into account. Our study provides much needed information to policy makers, care providers and women and families when planning for birth.Implications of all the available evidence Women who are low risk and who intend to give birth at home do not appear to have a different risk of fetal or neonatal loss compared to a population of similarly low risk women intending to give birth in hospital.
| S-EPMC6833447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are two approaches to care during the third stage of labour: Active management includes three components: administration of a prophylactic uterotonic drug, cord clamping and controlled cord traction. For physiological care, intervention occurs only if there is clinical need. Evidence to guide care during the third stage is limited and there is variation in recommendations which may contribute to differences in practice. This paper describes current UK practice during the third stage of labour.MethodsA postal survey of 2230 fellows and members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and 2400 members of the Royal College of Midwives was undertaken. Respondents were asked about care during the third stage of labour, for vaginal and caesarean births and their views on the need for more evidence to guide care in the third stage. The data were analysed in Excel and presented as descriptive statistics.Results1189 (53%) fellows and members of the RCOG and 1702 (71%) midwives responded, of whom 926 (78%) and 1297 (76%) respectively had conducted or supervised births in the last year. 93% (863/926) of obstetricians and 73% (942/1297) of midwives report 'always or usually' using active management. 66% (611/926) of obstetricians and 33% (430/1297) of midwives give the uterotonic drug with delivery of the anterior shoulder; this was intramuscular Syntometrine(R) for 79% (728/926) and 86% (1118/1293) respectively. For term births, 74% (682/926) of obstetricians and 41% (526/1297) of midwives clamp the cord within 20 seconds, as do 57% (523/926) and 55% (707/1297) for preterm births. Controlled cord traction was used by 94% of both obstetricians and midwives. For caesarean births, intravenous oxytocin was the uterotonic used by 90% (837/926) of obstetricians; 79% (726/926) clamp the cord within 20 seconds for term births as do 63% (576/926) for preterm births.Physiological management was used 'always or usually' by 2% (21/926) of obstetricians and 9% (121/1297) of midwives. 81% (747/926) of obstetricians and 89% (1151/1297) of midwives thought more evidence from randomised trials was needed; the most popular question was when is best to clamp the cord.ConclusionsActive management of the third stage of labour is widely used by both obstetricians and midwives in the UK. Syntometrine(R) is usually used for vaginal births and oxytocin for caesarean births; when this is given and when the cord is clamped varies.
| S-EPMC2885994 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is limited research examining midwives' education, knowledge and practice around immersion in water for labour or birth. Our aim was to address this gap in evidence and build knowledge around this important topic.MethodsThis mixed method study was performed in two phases, between August and December 2016, in the birth centre of a tertiary public maternity hospital in Western Australia. Phase one utilised a cross sectional design to examine perceptions of education, knowledge and practice around immersion in water for labour or birth through a questionnaire. Phase two employed a qualitative descriptive design and focus groups to explore what midwives enjoyed about caring for women who labour or birth in water and the challenges midwives experienced with waterbirth. Frequency distributions were employed for quantitative data. Thematic analysis was undertaken to extract common themes from focus group transcripts.ResultsThe majority (85%; 29 of 34) of midwives surveyed returned a questionnaire. Results from phase one confirmed that following training, 93% (27 of 29) of midwives felt equipped to facilitate waterbirth and the mean waterbirths required to facilitate confidence was seven. Midwives were confident caring for women in water during the first, second and third stage of labour and enjoyed facilitating water immersion for labour and birth. Finally, responses to labour and birth scenarios indicated midwives were practicing according to state-wide clinical guidance. Phase two included two focus groups of seven and five midwives. Exploration of what midwives enjoyed about caring for women who used water immersion revealed three themes: instinctive birthing; woman-centred atmosphere; and undisturbed space. Exploration of the challenges experienced with waterbirth revealed two themes: learning through reflection and facilities required to support waterbirth.ConclusionsThis research contributes to the growing knowledge base examining midwives' education, knowledge and practice around immersion in water for labour or birth. It also highlights the importance of exploring what immersion in water for labour and birth offers midwives, as this research suggests they are integral to sustaining waterbirth as an option for low risk women.
| S-EPMC6008918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMaternal expulsive efforts are thought to damage the pelvic floor. We aimed to compare pelvic floor function and anatomy between women who delivered vaginally (VB) versus those with caesarean delivery (CD) prior to the second stage of labour.DesignProspective cohort.SettingUniversity Hospital Midwifery practice.PopulationNulliparas.MethodsPregnant nulliparas were recruited during pregnancy and women who underwent CD prior to the 2nd stage of labour at birth were recruited immediately postpartum. Both groups were followed prospectively to 6 months postpartum.Main outcome measuresPOPQ, perineal ultrasound (U/S) and Paper Towel Test (PTT), an objective measure of stress incontinence; Incontinence Severity Index (ISI), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), Wexner Fecal Incontinence Scale (W) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI).Results336/448 (75%) VB and 138/224 (62%) CD followed up. The VB group was younger (23.9 ± 4.9 versus 26.6 ± 6.1 years, P < 0.001) and less overweight/obese (38 versus 56%, P < 0.001); baseline functional measures were similar (all P > 0.05). At follow-up, urinary incontinence (UI) (55 versus 46% ISI > 0, P = 0.10), fecal incontinence (FI) (8 versus 13% FI on W, P = 0.12), sexual activity rates (88 versus 92%, P = 0.18) and PFIQ-seven scores were similar. Positive PTT tests (17 versus 6%, P = 0.002) and ≥ Stage 2 prolapse (22 versus 15%, P = 0.03) were higher with VB; differences were limited to points Aa and Ba. U/S findings were not different between groups. Stepwise multivariate analyses controlling for age, body mass index, and non-Hispanic White race for prolapse of points Aa and Ba did not alter conclusions (all P < 0.004).ConclusionsVB resulted in prolapse changes and objective UI but not in increased self-report pelvic floor dysfunction at 6 months postpartum compared with women who delivered by CD prior to the second stage of labour. The second stage of labour had a modest effect on postpartum pelvic floor function.
| S-EPMC4565727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore whether an ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block (PNB) could decrease anaesthetic use, thereby shortening the length of the second stage of labour in women undergoing epidural analgesia.DesignProspective, single-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.SettingAn obstetric centre in a general hospital in China.Participants72 nulliparous women were randomised, and 71 women completed the study.InterventionAn ultrasound-guided bilateral PNB was administered to all study participants; the PNB group were given 0.25% ropivacaine 10 mL, while the control group were given 10 mL saline.Main outcome measureThe primary outcome measure was the duration of the second stage of labour. Secondary outcomes included additional bolus administration, total hourly bupivacaine consumption, difference in thickness between the contracted and relaxed rectus abdominis muscle before (DRAM1) and 30 min after (DRAM2) PNB, urge to defecate, maternal cooperation, preservation of the lower limb motor function, tightness of the perineum, and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score for pain.ResultsThe duration of the second stage of labour was shorter in the PNB group than in the control group (difference of 33.8 min (95% CI 15.6 to 52.0), p<0.001). Additional bolus administration and total hourly bupivacaine consumption were lower in the PNB group than in the control group (p<0.001). DRAM2 was greater (p<0.001), rate of parturient women with the urge to defecate was higher (p=0.014), maternal cooperation was superior (p=0.002), and lower limb motor function preservation was greater (p=0.004) in the PNB group relative to the control group. Tightness of the perineum was eliminated from the results due to the inconsistent application of the criteria by the nursing staff. There was no significant difference in NRS scores between the groups.ConclusionsNulliparous women with epidural analgesia who received an ultrasound-guided bilateral PNB may reduce their need for bupivacaine and consequently shorten the length of the second stage of labour, therein indicating that a bilateral PNB may serve as an additional effective adjunct method of labour analgesia.Trial registration numberChiCTR-IOR-16009121.
| S-EPMC7449485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To determine whether being upright in the second stage of labour in nulliparous women with a low dose epidural increases the chance of spontaneous vaginal birth compared with lying down.Design Multicentre pragmatic individually randomised controlled trial.Setting 41 UK hospital labour wards.Participants 3093 nulliparous women aged 16 or older, at term with a singleton cephalic presentation and in the second stage of labour with epidural analgesia.Interventions Women were allocated to an upright or lying down position, using a secure web based randomisation service, stratified by centre, with no masking of participants or clinicians to the trial interventions.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was spontaneous vaginal birth. Women were analysed in the groups into which they were randomly allocated, regardless of position recorded at any time during the second stage of labour (excluding women with no valid consent, who withdrew, or who did not reach second stage before delivery). Secondary outcomes included mode of birth, perineal trauma, infant Apgar score <4 at five minutes, admission to a neonatal unit, and longer term included maternal physical and psychological health, incontinence, and infant gross developmental delay. Results Between 4 October 2010 and 31 January 2014, 3236 women were randomised and 3093 (95.6%) included in the primary analysis (1556 in the upright group and 1537 in the lying down group). Significantly fewer spontaneous vaginal births occurred in women in the upright group: 35.2% (548/1556) compared with 41.1% (632/1537) in the lying down group (adjusted risk ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.94). This represents a 5.9% absolute increase in the chance of spontaneous vaginal birth in the lying down group (number needed to treat 17, 95% confidence interval 11 to 40). No evidence of differences was found for most of the secondary maternal, neonatal, or longer term outcomes including instrumental vaginal delivery (adjusted risk ratio 1.08, 99% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.18), obstetric anal sphincter injury (1.27, 0.88 to 1.84), infant Apgar score <4 at five minutes (0.66, 0.06 to 6.88), and maternal faecal incontinence at one year (1.18, 0.61 to 2.28).Conclusions Evidence shows that lying down in the second stage of labour results in more spontaneous vaginal births in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia, with no apparent disadvantages in relation to short or longer term outcomes for mother or baby.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35706297.
| S-EPMC5646262 | biostudies-literature