Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour

Endorphins, Sexuality, and Reproduction

Beta-endorphin is secreted from the hypothalamus and pituitary in both mother and newborn. The placenta produces numerous pituitary hormones from the third month of pregnancy, one of which is βE. It has been suggested that βE has a role in the appetitive and precopulatory phase of sexual behavior in animals. An increase in endorphin levels during sexual activity in humans may contribute to attachment and bonding between partners, but contradictory reports in the literature question the association between sexuality and βE levels. The level of βE also increases during pregnancy, rises in early labor, peaks in late labor, and drops in the postpartum period. This fluctuation provides natural analgesia, raises the pain threshold, decreases the sensation of pain, or suppresses pain, and decreases fear levels during labor and birth. Beta-endorphin also protects the fetus from hypoxia during labor and birth and potential neural damage by aiding blood flow to the brain under hypoxic conditions. It has been suggested that a variety of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic complementary therapies, when used in pregnancy, labor, and birth, activate the opioid receptors in the CNS and alter the sensation of pain during labor and birth, affect the mother-child attachment and affect sexual function. These studies report contradictory results that will be discussed in this chapter.

Nonpharmacological Methods to Reduce Pain During Active Labor in A Real-life Setting

OBJECTIVE

 To evaluate the association between pain intensity in the active phase of the first stage of labor with the use or not of nonpharmacological methods for pain relief in a real-life scenario.

METHODS

 This was an observational cross-sectional study. The variables analyzed were obtained by a questionnaire with the mothers (up to 48 hours postpartum) to investigate the intensity of pain during labor using the visual analog scale (VAS). The nonpharmacological pain relief methods routinely used in obstetric practice were evaluated by consulting medical records. The patients were separated into two groups: Group I - patients who did not use nonpharmacological methods for pain relief and Group II -patients who used these methods.

RESULTS

 A total of 439 women who underwent vaginal delivery were included; 386 (87.9%) used at least 1 nonpharmacological method and 53 (12.1%) did not. The women who did not use nonpharmacological methods had significantly lower gestational age (37.2 versus 39.6 weeks, p < 0.001) and shorter duration of labor (24 versus 114 min, p < 0.001) than those who used the methods. There was no statistically significant difference in the pain scale score using the VAS between the group that used nonpharmacological methods and the group that did not (median 10 [minimum 2-maximum 10] versus 10 [minimum 6-maximum 10] p = 0.334).

CONCLUSION

 In a real-life setting, there was no difference in labor pain intensity between the patients who used nonpharmacological methods and those who did not use them during the active phase of labor.

Vaginal Birth at Term - Part 2. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020)

Purpose This guideline aims to summarize the current state of knowledge about vaginal birth at term. The guideline focuses on definitions of the physiological stages of labor as well as differentiating between various pathological developments and conditions. It also assesses the need for intervention and the options to avoid interventions. The second part of this guideline presents recommendations and statements on care during the dilation and expulsion stages as well as during the placental/postnatal stage. Methods The German recommendations largely reproduce the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) CG190 guideline "Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies". Other international guidelines were also consulted in individual cases when compiling this guideline. In addition, a systematic search and analysis of the literature was carried out using PICO questions where necessary, and other systematic reviews and individual studies were taken into account. For easier comprehension, the assessment tools of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) were used to evaluate the quality of additionally consulted studies. Otherwise, the GRADE system was used for the NICE guideline, and the evidence reports of the IQWiG were used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Recommendations Recommendations and statements were formulated based on identified evidence and/or a structured consensus.

Immersive virtual reality on childbirth experience for women: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of immersive virtual reality (VR) on patient satisfaction as a distractive tool and pain relief among laboring women.

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled clinical trial with 42 laboring women allocated to VR intervention and control groups. Among women in the VR group, patient satisfaction with the use of VR was assessed by a Virtual Reality Satisfaction Survey, measured by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and evaluated by questioning them about whether they would choose VR in future labor. As a primary outcome, patient satisfaction scores regarding the overall childbirth experience were compared between women in the two groups. A secondary outcome was pain assessed by a visual pain rating scale in the early and active phases of labor in women in both groups. Psychometric information was also collected from participants in each group using the Beck Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory.

RESULTS

We observed a high level of patient satisfaction with the use of immersive VR during labor. The VAS revealed a mean satisfaction score of 87.7 ± 12.9 out of a maximum of 100. Twenty out of 21 (95%) women in the VR group stated that they would like to use VR again in future labor. VR improved pain scores in early labor and contributed positively to the overall childbirth experience. The mean pain score pre-VR was 2.6 ± 1.2 compared to 2.0 ± 1.3 post-VR (p < 0.01). Anxiety and depression scores were similar in participants in the intervention and control groups (p = 0.103 and p = 0.13, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Immersive VR application during labor was associated with higher patient satisfaction based on our study findings. VR also improved participants' pain scores in early labor before epidural administration. Immersive VR may find a place as an adjunct in labor and delivery units to improve lengthy labor experiences for women. Studies with larger groups of participants are needed to confirm these observations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05032456.

The AEDUCATE Collaboration. Comprehensive antenatal education birth preparation programmes to reduce the rates of caesarean section in nulliparous women. Protocol for an individual participant data prospective meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Rates of medical interventions in normal labour and birth are increasing. This prospective meta-analysis (PMA) proposes to assess whether the addition of a comprehensive multicomponent birth preparation programme reduces caesarean section (CS) in nulliparous women compared with standard hospital care. Additionally, do participant characteristics, intervention components or hospital characteristics modify the effectiveness of the programme? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Population: women with singleton vertex pregnancies, no planned caesarean section (CS) or epidural.Intervention: in addition to hospital-based standard care, a comprehensive antenatal education programme that includes multiple components for birth preparation, addressing the three objectives: preparing women and their birth partner/support person for childbirth through education on physiological/hormonal birth (knowledge and understanding); building women's confidence through psychological preparation (positive mindset) and support their ability to birth without pain relief using evidence-based tools (tools and techniques). The intervention could occur in a hospital-based or community setting.Comparator: standard care alone in hospital-based maternity units.

OUTCOMES

Primary: CS.Secondary: epidural analgesia, mode of birth, perineal trauma, postpartum haemorrhage, newborn resuscitation, psychosocial well-being.Subgroup analysis: parity, model of care, maternal risk status, maternal education, maternal socio-economic status, intervention components.

STUDY DESIGN

An individual participant data (IPD) prospective meta-analysis (PMA) of randomised controlled trials, including cluster design. Each trial is conducted independently but share core protocol elements to contribute data to the PMA. Participating trials are deemed eligible for the PMA if their results are not yet known outside their Data Monitoring Committees.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Participants in the individual trials will consent to participation, with respective trials receiving ethical approval by their local Human Research Ethics Committees. Individual datasets remain the property of trialists, and can be published prior to the publication of final PMA results. The overall data for meta-analysis will be held, analysed and published by the collaborative group, led by the Cochrane PMA group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020103857.

The role and outcomes of music listening for women in childbirth: An integrative review

AIM

To synthesise primary research on the role and use of music listening for women in childbirth.

DESIGN

Integrative review.

METHODS

Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) five-stage integrative review method was utilized to complete a systematic search of the literature. Studies were included if they were (a) peer-reviewed, (b) written in the English language, (c) published between 1 January 1979 and 5 April 2019 and (d) described the use of music listening during labour and birth. Studies were appraised for quality and methodological rigor using standardised assessment tools including the Critical Appraisal Skills Programmes (CASP) checklist for the qualitative studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for the quasi-experimental studies and randomised control trials. Data extrapolation, methodological quality assessment and Thematic Content Analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) were carried out.

FINDINGS

A total of 931 articles were retrieved and 24 papers were included in the review (12 randomized controlled trials, 9 quasi-experimental and 3 qualitative). The quality of the studies was moderately good overall. Two overarching themes emerged including 'outcomes of using music in childbirth' and, 'music application during childbirth'. Within 'outcomes of using music in childbirth' four subthemes are described: 'pain', 'anxiety', 'psychological supports' and 'progression of labour'. Within 'music application during childbirth' four themes are presented: 'timing of the music application', 'type of music', 'birth preparation using music' and 'mode of music listening'.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The findings indicate that music listening has a significant role to play for women in childbirth. This non-pharmacological intervention can reduce pain and anxiety while offering a multifaceted form of psychological support to alleviate stress and promote an increased sense of control in women during labour. However, further awareness is needed around the idiosyncratic nature of the music listening experience.

Massage for Pain: An Evidence Map

Objectives: Massage therapy has been proposed for painful conditions, but it can be difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence, as various painful conditions may respond differently to massage. The authors conducted an evidence mapping process and generated an "evidence map" to visually depict the distribution of evidence available for massage and various pain indications to identify gaps in evidence and to inform future research priorities. Design: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for systematic reviews reporting pain outcomes for massage therapy. The authors assessed the quality of each review using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria. The authors used a bubble plot to depict the number of included articles, pain indication, effect of massage for pain, and strength of findings for each included systematic review. Results: The authors identified 49 systematic reviews, of which 32 were considered high quality. Types of pain frequently included in systematic reviews were cancer pain, low back pain, and neck pain. High quality reviews concluded that there was low strength of evidence of potential benefits of massage for labor, shoulder, neck, low back, cancer, arthritis, postoperative, delayed onset muscle soreness, and musculoskeletal pain. Reported attributes of massage interventions include style of massage, provider, co-interventions, duration, and comparators, with 14 high-quality reviews reporting all these attributes in their review. Conclusion: Prior reviews have conclusions of low strength of evidence because few primary studies of large samples with rigorous methods had been conducted, leaving evidence gaps about specific massage type for specific pain. Primary studies often do not provide adequate details of massage therapy provided, limiting the extent to which reviews are able to draw conclusions about characteristics such as provider type.

The Effect of Oral Intake of Honey Syrup on the Pain Intensity of Active Phase of Parturition of nulliparous women: A Randomized clinical trial

Background

Labor is a natural pain despite the fact that the severity of the pain and response to it differ in various people, but most women refer to labor as an unpleasant experience of their lives. The present study was carried out to determine the effect of honey on the severity of labor in primigravida women.

Methods

In this study, 80 healthy volunteer primigravida women were entered to the research as randomized clinical trial (40 subjects in each group) after studying and signing consent form and they were randomly divided into two intervention honey group and control group. The data gathering tool comprised four main parts of the personal profile questionnaire, controls performance in the labor, records fluid intake rate and pain intensity using a 0-10 cm ruler.

Results

The mean of pain intensity in the honey syrup intervention group was significant.

Conclusion

Honey syrup consumption without side effects significantly affected the severity of labor.

Immersion in water during labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings. However, there are concerns around neonatal water inhalation, increased requirement for admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), maternal and/or neonatal infection, and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). This is an update of a review last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of water immersion during labour and/or birth (first, second and third stage of labour) on women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing water immersion with no immersion, or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management during labour and/or birth in healthy low-risk women at term gestation with a singleton fetus. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 15 trials conducted between 1990 and 2015 (3663 women): eight involved water immersion during the first stage of labour; two during the second stage only; four during the first and second stages of labour, and one comparing early versus late immersion during the first stage of labour. No trials evaluated different baths/pools, or third-stage labour management. All trials were undertaken in a hospital labour ward setting, with a varying degree of medical intervention considered as routine practice. No study was carried out in a midwifery-led care setting. Most trial authors did not specify the parity of women. Trials were subject to varying degrees of bias: the intervention could not be blinded and there was a lack of information about randomisation, and whether analyses were undertaken by intention-to-treat.Immersion in water versus no immersion (first stage of labour)There is probably little or no difference in spontaneous vaginal birth between immersion and no immersion (82% versus 83%; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; 6 trials; 2559 women; moderate-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (14% versus 12%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05; 6 trials; 2559 women; low-quality evidence); and caesarean section (4% versus 5%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.79; 7 trials; 2652 women; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of immersion on estimated blood loss (mean difference (MD) -14.33 mL, 95% CI -63.03 to 34.37; 2 trials; 153 women; very low-quality evidence) and third- or fourth-degree tears (3% versus 3%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.18; 4 trials; 2341 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was a small reduction in the risk of using regional analgesia for women allocated to water immersion from 43% to 39% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; 5 trials; 2439 women; moderate-quality evidence). Perinatal deaths were not reported, and there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (6% versus 8%; average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.97; 2 trials; 1511 infants; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence), or on neonatal infection rates (1% versus 1%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.94; 5 trials; 1295 infants; very low-quality evidence).Immersion in water versus no immersion (second stage of labour)There were no clear differences between groups for spontaneous vaginal birth (97% versus 99%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 120 women; 1 trial; low-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (2% versus 2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence); caesarean section (2% versus 1%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), and NICU admissions (11% versus 9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.59; 2 trials; 291 women; very low-quality evidence). Use of regional analgesia was not relevant to the second stage of labour. Third- or fourth-degree tears, and estimated blood loss were not reported in either trial. No trial reported neonatal infection but did report neonatal temperature less than 36.2°C at birth (9% versus 9%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.20; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), greater than 37.5°C at birth (6% versus 15%; RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.73 to 9.35; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), and fever reported in first week (5% versus 2%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.82; 1 trial; 171 infants; very low-quality evidence), with no clear effect between groups being observed. One perinatal death occurred in the immersion group in one trial (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.20; 1 trial; 120 infants; very low-quality evidence). The infant was born to a mother with HIV and the cause of death was deemed to be intrauterine infection.There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the baby or woman from either the first or second stage of labour.Only one trial (200 women) compared early and late entry into the water and there were insufficient data to show any clear differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In healthy women at low risk of complications there is moderate to low-quality evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour probably has little effect on mode of birth or perineal trauma, but may reduce the use of regional analgesia. The evidence for immersion during the second stage of labour is limited and does not show clear differences on maternal or neonatal outcomes intensive care. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring or giving birth in water. Available evidence is limited by clinical variability and heterogeneity across trials, and no trial has been conducted in a midwifery-led setting.

Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour, and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined the evidence currently available on manual methods, including massage and reflexology, for pain management in labour. This review is an update of the review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect, safety and acceptability of massage, reflexology and other manual methods to manage pain in labour.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 June 2017, CINAHL (1980 to 30 June 2017), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (4 August 2017), Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (4 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, (4 August 2017), the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (4 August 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (4 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing manual methods with standard care, other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour, no treatment or placebo. We searched for trials of the following modalities: massage, warm packs, thermal manual methods, reflexology, chiropractic, osteopathy, musculo-skeletal manipulation, deep tissue massage, neuro-muscular therapy, shiatsu, tuina, trigger point therapy, myotherapy and zero balancing. We excluded trials for pain management relating to hypnosis, aromatherapy, acupuncture and acupressure; these are included in other Cochrane reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and checked data for accuracy. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 14 trials; 10 of these (1055 women) contributed data to meta-analysis. Four trials, involving 274 women, met our inclusion criteria but did not contribute data to the review. Over half the trials had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and attrition bias. The majority of trials had a high risk of performance bias and detection bias, and an unclear risk of reporting bias. We found no trials examining the effectiveness of reflexology.MassageWe found low-quality evidence that massage provided a greater reduction in pain intensity (measured using self-reported pain scales) than usual care during the first stage of labour (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.06 to -0.56, six trials, 362 women). Two trials reported on pain intensity during the second and third stages of labour, and there was evidence of a reduction in pain scores in favour of massage (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -2.23 to 0.26, 124 women; and SMD -1.03, 95% CI -2.17 to 0.11, 122 women). There was very low-quality evidence showing no clear benefit of massage over usual care for the length of labour (in minutes) (mean difference (MD) 20.64, 95% CI -58.24 to 99.52, six trials, 514 women), and pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.74, four trials, 105 women). There was very low-quality evidence showing no clear benefit of massage for assisted vaginal birth (average RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.13, four trials, 368 women) and caesarean section (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.09, six trials, 514 women). One trial reported less anxiety during the first stage of labour for women receiving massage (MD -16.27, 95% CI -27.03 to -5.51, 60 women). One trial found an increased sense of control from massage (MD 14.05, 95% CI 3.77 to 24.33, 124 women, low-quality evidence). Two trials examining satisfaction with the childbirth experience reported data on different scales; both found more satisfaction with massage, although the evidence was low quality in one study and very low in the other.Warm packsWe found very low-quality evidence for reduced pain (Visual Analogue Scale/VAS) in the first stage of labour (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.00, three trials, 191 women), and the second stage of labour (SMD -1.49, 95% CI -2.85 to -0.13, two trials, 128 women). Very low-quality evidence showed reduced length of labour (minutes) in the warm-pack group (MD -66.15, 95% CI -91.83 to -40.47; two trials; 128 women).Thermal manual methodsOne trial evaluated thermal manual methods versus usual care and found very low-quality evidence of reduced pain intensity during the first phase of labour for women receiving thermal methods (MD -1.44, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.65, one trial, 96 women). There was a reduction in the length of labour (minutes) (MD -78.24, 95% CI -118.75 to -37.73, one trial, 96 women, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference for assisted vaginal birth (very low-quality evidence). Results were similar for cold packs versus usual care, and intermittent hot and cold packs versus usual care, for pain intensity, length of labour and assisted vaginal birth.Music One trial that compared manual methods with music found very low-quality evidence of reduced pain intensity during labour in the massage group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.89, 101 women). There was no evidence of benefit for reduced use of pharmacological pain relief (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.08, very low-quality evidence).Of the seven outcomes we assessed using GRADE, only pain intensity was reported in all comparisons. Satisfaction with the childbirth experience, sense of control, and caesarean section were rarely reported in any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Massage, warm pack and thermal manual methods may have a role in reducing pain, reducing length of labour and improving women's sense of control and emotional experience of labour, although the quality of evidence varies from low to very low and few trials reported on the key GRADE outcomes. Few trials reported on safety as an outcome. There is a need for further research to address these outcomes and to examine the effectiveness and efficacy of these manual methods for pain management.

Cost analysis of the CTLB Study, a multitherapy antenatal education programme to reduce routine interventions in labour

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the multitherapy antenatal education 'CTLB' (Complementary Therapies for Labour and Birth) Study programme leads to net cost savings.

DESIGN

Cost analysis of the CTLB Study, using analysis of outcomes and hospital funding data.

METHODS

We take a payer perspective and use Australian Refined Diagnosis-Related Group (AR-DRG) cost data to estimate the potential savings per woman to the payer (government or private insurer). We consider scenarios in which the intervention cost is either borne by the woman or by the payer. Savings are computed as the difference in total cost between the control group and the study group.

RESULTS

If the cost of the intervention is not borne by the payer, the average saving to the payer was calculated to be $A808 per woman. If the payer covers the cost of the programme, this figure reduces to $A659 since the average cost of delivering the programme was $A149 per woman. All these findings are significant at the 95% confidence level. Significantly more women in the study group experienced a normal vaginal birth, and significantly fewer women in the study group experienced a caesarean section. The main cost saving resulted from the reduced rate of caesarean section in the study group.

CONCLUSION

The CTLB antenatal education programme leads to significant savings to payers that come from reduced use of hospital resources. Depending on which perspective is considered, and who is responsible for covering the cost of the programme, the net savings vary from $A659 to $A808 per woman. Compared with the average cost of birth in the control group, we conclude that the programme could lead to a reduction in birth-related healthcare costs of approximately 9%.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12611001126909.

Case Reports of Acupuncturists and Massage Therapists at Mayo Clinic: New Allies in Expediting Patient Diagnoses

Acupuncturists and massage therapists practicing within hospital and clinic settings is a relatively new, but growing phenomenon. Many clinical trials have documented the therapeutic roles these professionals can play in caring for patients. However, to our knowledge, little emphasis has been placed on their ability to aid in the diagnostic process. We report here our experience with these providers playing a critical role in contributing novel diagnostic information, both in the outpatient and inpatient settings. These observations suggest that acupuncturists and massage therapists can play a strategic role in helping achieve timely diagnoses for many patients. Strategies on how to incorporate these professionals into the care flow in the clinic and hospital are discussed.

Implementation of Robert's Coping with Labor Algorithm© in a large tertiary care facility

OBJECTIVE

to implement use of Roberts' Coping with Labor Algorithm^© (CWLA) with laboring women in a large tertiary care facility.

DESIGN

this was a quality improvement project to implement an alternate approach to pain assessment during labor. It included system assessment for change readiness, implementation of the algorithm across a 6-week period, evaluation of usefulness by nursing staff, and determination of sustained change at one month. Stakeholder Theory (Friedman and Miles, 2002) and Deming's (1982) Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle, as adapted by Roberts et al (2010), provided the framework for project implementation.

SETTING

the project was undertaken on a labor and delivery (L&D) unit of a large tertiary care facility in a southwestern state in the USA. The unit had 19 suites with close to 6000 laboring patients each year.

PARTICIPANTS

full, part-time, and per diem Registered Nurse (RN) staff (N=80), including a subset (n=18) who served as the pilot group and champions for implementing the change.

FINDINGS

a majority of RNs held a positive attitude toward use of the CWLA to assess laboring women's coping with the pain of labor as compared to a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). RNs reported usefulness in using the CWLA with patients from a wide variety of ethnicities. A pre-existing well-developed team which advocated for evidence-based practice on the unit proved to be a significant strength which promoted rapid change in practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

this work provides important knowledge supporting use of the CWLA in a large tertiary care facility and an approach for effectively implementing that change. Strengths identified in this project contributed to rapid implementation and could be emulated in other facilities. Participant reports support usefulness of the CWLA with patients of varied ethnicity. Assessment of change sustainability at 1 and 6 months demonstrated widespread use of the algorithm though long-term determination is yet needed.

Kinesio Taping for pain control during labor: Protocol of a randomized, controlled trial

This study protocol will evaluate the effectiveness and safety during labor and delivery of the Kinesio Taping bandage for pain sensation, satisfaction of patients, and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. A randomized controlled trial with 60 participants divided into two groups will be conducted. The intervention group will receive bandage application on the vertebral regions corresponding to uterine dermatomes - from T10 to L1 and from S2 to S4. The control group will receive bandage application away from uterine dermatomes, from T1 to T4. The primary endpoint is pain during labor. Secondary endpoints are perinatal outcomes and patient satisfaction with the bandage and with her labor. Pain levels will be evaluated on an hourly basis during labor, and intention-to-treat analysis will be performed. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals will be calculated. Findings on effectiveness of pain control with no adverse effects to both the mother and neonate are the first step in evaluating the systematic use of Kinesio Taping during labor. Since self-control may affect birthing experience satisfaction, discovering new alternatives for pain control may allow for a better experience.

Factors Affecting Midwives’ Decision to Offer Complementary and Alternative Medicine/Nonpharmacological Pain Relief Methods for Labor and Birth

PURPOSE:This study examines how characteristics of birth settings influence midwives’ decision to offer complementary and alternate nonpharmacological pain relief in labor and childbirth.

METHOD:This is a nonexperimental design. A convenience sample of midwives (N= 520), members of the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM), were surveyed using a 51-item Likert-type scale questionnaire. Midwives were assigned to 1 of 3 primary birth settings (hospital, birthing center, home birth) for data analysis to identify if certain characteristics (policies/protocols, use of technology, providers’ knowledge and beliefs, and midwives’ relationship with collaborating obstetricians) in the birth setting influence a midwife’s decision to offer nonpharmacological pain relief methods in labor and birth.

RESULTS:Findings indicate that knowledge and beliefs of health care providers most influenced midwives’ decisions. Although factors of the birth environment influence midwives’ decisions to offer nonpharmacological pain management in labor, they do not prevent midwives from using most of the nonpharmacological pain relief methods during labor and birth.

CONCLUSIONS:It would appear that the midwives’ philosophy of care more than the characteristics of the birth setting influence midwives’ decisions to offer nonpharmacological pain relief methods. Educating health care providers about nonpharmacological pain relief methods would further maximize midwives’ ability to use these strategies.

The effectiveness of breathing patterns to control maternal anxiety during the first period of labor: A randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Assess the efficacy of the breathing patterns during the active phase of the first stage of labor for maternal anxiety.

DESING

Randomised trial with two treatment arms and intention-to-treat analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

One Hundred and forty patient in active labour, age between 12 and 40 years old and gestational age between 37 and 41 weeks. The breathing patterns waere made depending on the dilation phase and intensity of contraction, while the control group received routine care service.

RESULTS

There was no difference between groups two hours after the first evaluation regarding to anxiety (MD 0.3 CI95% -4.2 to 4.8), pain (MD 0.0 CI95% -0.8 to 0.7), fatigue (MD -0.5 CI95% -1.4 to 2.5) and maternal satisfaction (MD 0.9 CI95% -0.1 to 2.0).

CONCLUSIONS

The study results showed that the use of breathing patterns during the first period of labour were not effective to control anxiety, pain, fatigue and maternal satisfaction.

The relationship between expectation, experience and perception of labour pain: an observational study

The present study was aimed to assess the relationship between pain expectation before labour, labour pain and pain perception after the labour. Pregnant women were asked to rate their pain level on a standard continuous visual analogue scale at various time points. Pain expectancy (PE), labour pain (LP) and postpartum pain perception (PPP) scores were calculated. The final study group was composed of 230 pregnant women after exclusions. Mean age of pregnant women was 26.2 ± 5.79. The mean PE, LP, and PPP scores were 70.11 ± 18.82, 75.72 ± 19.2 and 65.84 ± 19.56, respectively. The difference among pain scores was statistically significant (p < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between PE and LP or PE and PPP scores (p = 0.27 and p = 0.21). The correlations were statistically significant (p = 0.01 or p = 0.01). In addition, there was a positive correlation between LP and PPP scores (p = 0.87) and the correlation was statistically significant (p = 0.01). This study showed that, if pregnant women had lower expectations of pain before the labour, they indeed experienced lower amount of pain during the labour.

[Implementation methodology of practices based on scientific evidence for assistance in natural delivery: a pilot study]

OBJECTIVE

Presenting methodology for transferring knowledge to improve maternal outcomes in natural delivery based on scientific evidence.

METHOD

An intervention study conducted in the maternity hospital of Itapecerica da Serra, SP, with 50 puerperal women and 102 medical records from July to November 2014. The PACES tool from Joanna Briggs Institute, consisting of pre-clinical audit (phase 1), implementation of best practice (phase 2) and Follow-up Clinical Audit (phase 3) was used. Data were analyzed by comparing results of phases 1 and 3 with Fisher's exact test and a significance level of 5%.

RESULTS

The vertical position was adopted by the majority of puerperal women with statistical difference between phases 1 and 3. A significant increase in bathing/showering, walking and massages for pain relief was found from the medical records. No statistical difference was found in other practices and outcomes. Barriers and difficulties in the implementation of evidence-based practices have been identified. Variables were refined, techniques and data collection instruments were verified, and an intervention proposal was made.

CONCLUSION

The study found possibilities for implementing a methodology of practices based on scientific evidence for assistance in natural delivery.

Complementary therapies for labour and birth study: a randomised controlled trial of antenatal integrative medicine for pain management in labour

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of an antenatal integrative medicine education programme in addition to usual care for nulliparous women on intrapartum epidural use.

DESIGN

Open-label, assessor blind, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

2 public hospitals in Sydney, Australia.

POPULATION

176 nulliparous women with low-risk pregnancies, attending hospital-based antenatal clinics.

METHODS AND INTERVENTION

The Complementary Therapies for Labour and Birth protocol, based on the She Births and acupressure for labour and birth courses, incorporated 6 evidence-based complementary medicine techniques: acupressure, visualisation and relaxation, breathing, massage, yoga techniques, and facilitated partner support. Randomisation occurred at 24-36 weeks' gestation, and participants attended a 2-day antenatal education programme plus standard care, or standard care alone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rate of analgesic epidural use. Secondary: onset of labour, augmentation, mode of birth, newborn outcomes.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in epidural use between the 2 groups: study group (23.9%) standard care (68.7%; risk ratio (RR) 0.37 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.55), p≤0.001). The study group participants reported a reduced rate of augmentation (RR=0.54 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.77), p<0.0001); caesarean section (RR=0.52 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.87), p=0.017); length of second stage (mean difference=-0.32 (95% CI -0.64 to 0.002), p=0.05); any perineal trauma (0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98), p=0.02) and resuscitation of the newborn (RR=0.47 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.87), p≤0.015). There were no statistically significant differences found in spontaneous onset of labour, pethidine use, rate of postpartum haemorrhage, major perineal trauma (third and fourth degree tears/episiotomy), or admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (p=0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

The Complementary Therapies for Labour and Birth study protocol significantly reduced epidural use and caesarean section. This study provides evidence for integrative medicine as an effective adjunct to antenatal education, and contributes to the body of best practice evidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12611001126909.

The Impact of Massage Therapy on Function in Pain Populations-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Part I, Patients Experiencing Pain in the General Population

PURPOSE

Pain is multi-dimensional and may be better addressed through a holistic, biopsychosocial approach. Massage therapy is commonly practiced among patients seeking pain management; however, its efficacy is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to rigorously assess the quality of massage therapy research and evidence for its efficacy in treating pain, function-related and health-related quality of life outcomes across all pain populations.

METHODS

Key databases were searched from inception through February 2014. Eligible randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality using SIGN 50 Checklist. Meta-analysis was applied at the outcome level. A diverse steering committee interpreted the results to develop recommendations.

RESULTS

Sixty high quality and seven low quality studies were included in the review. Results demonstrate massage therapy effectively treats pain compared to sham [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -.44], no treatment (SMD = -1.14), and active (SMD = -0.26) comparators. Compared to active comparators, massage therapy was also beneficial for treating anxiety (SMD = -0.57) and health-related quality of life (SMD = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence, massage therapy, compared to no treatment, should be strongly recommended as a pain management option. Massage therapy is weakly recommended for reducing pain, compared to other sham or active comparators, and improving mood and health-related quality of life, compared to other active comparators. Massage therapy safety, research challenges, how to address identified research gaps, and necessary next steps for implementing massage therapy as a viable pain management option are discussed.

Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth

BACKGROUND

This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. This review updates an earlier version of the review of the same title.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTS comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials randomising a total of 2954 women. The risk of bias in trials was variable, there were several well-designed large trials and some trials where little was reported about trial design. Although eight of the nine trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. In this updated review we compared hypnosis interventions with all control groups (main comparison) and also with specific control conditions: standard care (nine RCTs), supportive counselling (two RCTs) and relaxation training (two RCTs).In the main comparison, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological pain relief or analgesia than those in the control groups, (average risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, eight studies, 2916 women; very low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for most of the other primary outcomes. There were no clear differences for sense of coping with labour (MD 0.22, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.58, one study, 420 women; low-quality evidence) or spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.32, six studies, 2361 women; low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief (measured on a seven-point scale two weeks postnatally) for women in the hypnosis group who also received pethidine (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.27; one study, 72 women), Entonox (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.57; one study, 357 women), self-hypnosis (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.88; one study, 160 women), or epidural (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.34; one study, 127 women), but a slight benefit in favour of hypnosis was seen for women who received water immersion (MD 0.52, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.00; one study, 174 women (all low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief when it was measured as the number of women who reported they had adequate pain relief (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women; low-quality evidence). It should be noted that for pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth, there was evidence of considerable statistical heterogeneity, which could not be fully explained by subgroup analysis.For this review's secondary outcomes, no clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control groups for most outcomes where data were available. There was mixed evidence regarding benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with all control groups for pain intensity, satisfaction with childbirth experience and postnatal depression. For each of these outcomes, data from more than one trial were available for analysis but could not be combined due to differences in measurement methods. There was evidence that fewer women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth but this finding was based on one small study (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83). No clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and the control groups were found for the other secondary outcomes where data were available.In the comparisons of hypnosis with specific types of control conditions: standard care, supportive counselling and relaxation training, there were no clear differences found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the standard care control groups or the relaxation control groups for the primary outcomes. Compared with the women in the supportive counselling control group, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological analgesia (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73, two studies, 562 women). They were also more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.07), although this finding was based on the results of one small study. Overall these new comparisons displayed much less statistical heterogeneity than the comparison including all control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are still only a relatively small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Hypnosis may reduce the overall use of analgesia during labour, but not epidural use. No clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for satisfaction with pain relief, sense of coping with labour or spontaneous vaginal birth. Not enough evidence currently exists regarding satisfaction with pain relief or sense of coping with labour and we would encourage any future research to prioritise the measurement of these outcomes. The evidence for the main comparison was assessed using GRADE as being of low quality for all the primary outcomes with downgrading decisions due to concerns regarding inconsistency of the evidence, limitations in design and imprecision. Further research is needed in the form of large, well-designed randomised controlled trials to assess whether hypnosis is of value for pain management during labour and childbirth.

Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care

In this first paper in a series of four papers on midwifery, we aimed to examine, comprehensively and systematically, the contribution midwifery can make to the quality of care of women and infants globally, and the role of midwives and others in providing midwifery care. Drawing on international definitions and current practice, we mapped the scope of midwifery. We then developed a framework for quality maternal and newborn care using a mixed-methods approach including synthesis of findings from systematic reviews of women's views and experiences, effective practices, and maternal and newborn care providers. The framework differentiates between what care is provided and how and by whom it is provided, and describes the care and services that childbearing women and newborn infants need in all settings. We identified more than 50 short-term, medium-term, and long-term outcomes that could be improved by care within the scope of midwifery; reduced maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, reduced stillbirth and preterm birth, decreased number of unnecessary interventions, and improved psychosocial and public health outcomes. Midwifery was associated with more efficient use of resources and improved outcomes when provided by midwives who were educated, trained, licensed, and regulated. Our findings support a system-level shift from maternal and newborn care focused on identification and treatment of pathology for the minority to skilled care for all. This change includes preventive and supportive care that works to strengthen women's capabilities in the context of respectful relationships, is tailored to their needs, focuses on promotion of normal reproductive processes, and in which first-line management of complications and accessible emergency treatment are provided when needed. Midwifery is pivotal to this approach, which requires effective interdisciplinary teamwork and integration across facility and community settings. Future planning for maternal and newborn care systems can benefit from using the quality framework in planning workforce development and resource allocation.

Clinical effectiveness of manual therapy for the management of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions: systematic review and update of UK evidence report

BACKGROUND

This systematic review updated and extended the "UK evidence report" by Bronfort et al. (Chiropr Osteopath 18:3, 2010) with respect to conditions/interventions that received an 'inconclusive' or 'negative' evidence rating or were not covered in the report.

METHODS

A literature search of more than 10 general medical and specialised databases was conducted in August 2011 and updated in March 2013. Systematic reviews, primary comparative studies and qualitative studies of patients with musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions treated with manual therapy and reporting clinical outcomes were included. Study quality was assessed using standardised instruments, studies were summarised, and the results were compared against the evidence ratings of Bronfort. These were either confirmed, updated, or new categories not assessed by Bronfort were added.

RESULTS

25,539 records were found; 178 new and additional studies were identified, of which 72 were systematic reviews, 96 were randomised controlled trials, and 10 were non-randomised primary studies. Most 'inconclusive' or 'moderate' evidence ratings of the UK evidence report were confirmed. Evidence ratings changed in a positive direction from inconclusive to moderate evidence ratings in only three cases (manipulation/mobilisation [with exercise] for rotator cuff disorder; spinal mobilisation for cervicogenic headache; and mobilisation for miscellaneous headache). In addition, evidence was identified on a large number of non-musculoskeletal conditions not previously considered; most of this evidence was rated as inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there was limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of manual therapy. Most reviewed evidence was of low to moderate quality and inconsistent due to substantial methodological and clinical diversity. Areas requiring further research are highlighted.

Evaluation of the Bonapace Method: a specific educational intervention to reduce pain during childbirth

OBJECTIVE

As pain during childbirth is very intense, several educational programs exist to help women prepare for the event. This study evaluates the efficacy of a specific pain management program, the Bonapace Method (BM), to reduce the perception of pain during childbirth. The BM involves the father, or a significant partner, in the use of several pain control techniques based on three neurophysiological pain modulation models: (1) controlling the central nervous system through breathing, relaxation, and cognitive structuring; (2) using non-painful stimuli as described in the Gate Control Theory; and (3) recruiting descending inhibition by hyperstimulation of acupressure trigger points.

METHODS

A multicenter case control study in Quebec on pain perception during labor and delivery compared traditional childbirth training programs (TCTPs) and the BM. Visual analog scales were used to measure pain perception during labor. In all, 25 women (TCTP: n = 12; BM: n = 13) successfully reported their perceptions of pain intensity and unpleasantness every 15 minutes.

RESULTS

A POSITIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PROGRESSION OF LABOR AND PAIN WAS FOUND (PAIN INTENSITY: P < 0.01; pain unpleasantness: P < 0.01). When compared to TCTP, the BM showed an overall significant lower pain perception for both intensity (45%; P < 0.01) and unpleasantness (46%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

These significant differences in pain perception between TCTP and the BM suggest that the emphasis on pain modulation models and techniques during labor combined with the active participation of a partner in BM are important variables to be added to the traditional childbirth training programs for childbirth pain management.

Nonpharmacologic labor analgesia

A supportive medical team should be well informed on the various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic modalities of coping with or mitigating labor pain to appropriately support and respectfully care for parturients. Using the methodical rigor of previously published Cochrane systematic reviews, this summary evaluates and discusses the efficacy of nonpharmacologic labor analgesic interventions.

The influence of complementary and alternative medicine use in pregnancy on labor pain management choices: results from a nationally representative sample of 1,835 women

OBJECTIVES

This study examines involvement with a range of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) during pregnancy on the use of pharmacologic (PPMT) and nonpharmacologic (NPMT) pain management techniques for labor and birth.

DESIGN

Longitudinal analysis of survey data.

PARTICIPANTS

A substudy (n=2445) of the "young" cohort of the nationally representative Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health was conducted.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Use of PPMT and NPMT during labor and birth.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 1835 women (response rate, 79.2%). Most respondents used either intrapartum PPMT (81.9%) or NPMT (74.4%). Many (60.7%) used some form of CAM during pregnancy and also used PPMT during birth. More than two thirds of women (66.7%) who used NPMT used CAM during pregnancy. There was a general trend of increased likelihood of NPMT use by women who applied CAM during pregnancy. There was an inverse effect on use of epidural analgesia for women who consumed herbal teas during pregnancy (odds ratio, 0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the study design, this paper does not confirm a causative relationship between the use of CAM during pregnancy and intrapartum pain management choices. It does, however, indicate that the use of CAM during pregnancy may not significantly affect the uptake of intrapartum PPMT, despite possible attempts to reduce PPMT by using NPMT. It also highlights the possibility of potential interactions between CAM and PPMT, given the high prevalence of concomitant use.

Massage reduced severity of pain during labour: a randomised trial

QUESTION

Does massage relieve pain in the active phase of labour?

DESIGN

Randomised trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding for some outcomes, and intention-to-treat analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

46 women pregnant at ≥ 37 weeks gestation with a single fetus, with spontaneous onset of labour, 4-5cm of cervical dilation, intact ovular membranes, and no use of medication after admission to hospital.

INTERVENTION

Experimental group participants received a 30-min lumbar massage by a physiotherapist during the active phase of labour. A physiotherapist attended control group participants for the same period but only answered questions. Both groups received routine perinatal care.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain severity measured on a 100mm visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, pain location, and time to analgesic medication use. After labour, a blinded researcher also recorded duration of labour, route of delivery, neonatal outcomes, and the participant's satisfaction with the physiotherapist during labour.

RESULTS

At the end of the intervention, pain severity was 52mm (SD 20) in the experimental group and 72mm (SD 15) in control group, which was significantly different with a mean difference of 20mm (95% CI 10 to 31). The groups did not differ significantly on the other pain-related outcome measures. Obstetric outcomes were also similar between the groups except the duration of labour, which was 6.8hr (SD 1.6) in the experimental group and 5.7hr (SD 1.5) in the control group, mean difference 1.1hr (95% CI 0.2 to 2.0). Patients in both groups were satisfied with the care provided by the physiotherapist.

CONCLUSION

Massage reduced the severity of pain in labour, despite not changing its characteristics and location.

Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth

BACKGROUND

This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. We examined the current evidence regarding the use of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. This review updates the findings regarding hypnosis from an earlier review of complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour into a stand-alone review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 January 2012) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials randomising a total of 1213 women. All but one of the trials were at moderate to high risk of bias. Although six of the seven trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. No significant differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control group were found for the primary outcomes: use of pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.01, six studies, 1032 women), spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.96, four studies, 472 women) or satisfaction with pain relief (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women). There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the data for use of pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth. The primary outcome of sense of coping with labour was reported in two studies as showing no beneficial effect (no usable data available for this review).  For secondary outcomes, no significant differences were identified between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control group for most outcomes where data were available. For example, there was no significant difference for satisfaction with the childbirth experience (average RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59, two studies, 370 women), admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.89, two studies, 347 women) or breastfeeding at discharge from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03, one study, 304 women). There was some evidence of benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with the control group for pain intensity, length of labour and maternal hospital stay, although these findings were based on single studies with small numbers of women. Pain intensity was found to be lower for women in the hypnosis group than those in the control group in one trial of 60 women (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.37). The same study found that the average length of labour from 5 cm dilation to birth (minutes) was significantly shorter for women in the hypnosis group (mean difference -165.20, 95% CI -223.53 to -106.87, one study, 60 women). Another study found that a smaller proportion of women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth compared with women in the control group (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83, one study, 42 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are still only a small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Although the intervention shows some promise, further research is needed before recommendations can be made regarding its clinical usefulness for pain management in maternity care.

Inhaled analgesia for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to have a choice in pain relief during labour and also would like to avoid invasive methods of pain management in labour. Inhaled analgesia during labour involves the self-administered inhalation of sub-anaesthetic concentrations of agents while the mother remains awake and her protective laryngeal reflexes remain intact. Most of the agents are easy to administer, can be started in less than a minute and become effective within a minute.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of all modalities of inhaled analgesia on the mother and the newborn for mothers who planned to have a vaginal delivery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Current Controlled Trials (2 June 2012), handsearched conference proceedings from the American Society of Clinical Anesthesia (from 1990 to 2011), contacted content experts and trialists and searched reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled analgesia with other inhaled analgesia or placebo or no treatment or other methods of non-pharmacological pain management in labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, methodological quality and extracted all data. Data were double checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six studies, randomising 2959 women, were included in this review.Inhaled analgesia versus a different type of inhaled analgesia Pain relief was measured using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 mm where 100 corresponds to the most relief. Pain intensity was measured using a VAS from 0 to 100 mm, where 0 corresponds to no pain at all and 100 corresponds to the worst pain. The highest score for pain relief is the most positive in contrast to 'pain intensity' in which the higher score is more negative. Flurane derivatives were found to offer better pain relief than nitrous oxide in first stage of labour as measured by a lower pain intensity score (average mean difference (MD) 14.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.41 to 24.37, three studies, 70 women), also a higher pain relief score for flurane derivatives compared with nitrous oxide (average MD -16.32, 95% CI -26.85 to -5.79, two studies, 70 women). Substantial heterogeneity was found in the analyses of pain intensity (P = 0.003) and in the analysis of pain relief (P = 0.002).These findings should be considered with caution because of the questionable design of the included cross-over trials. More nausea was found in the nitrous oxide group compared with the flurane derivatives group (risk ratio (RR) 6.60 95% CI 1.85 to 23.52, two studies, 98 women).Inhaled analgesia versus placebo or no treatment Placebo or no treatment was found to offer less pain relief compared to nitrous oxide (average RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.34, two studies, 310 women; MD -3.50, 95% CI -3.75 to -3.25, one study, 509 women). However, nitrous oxide resulted in more side effects for women such as nausea (RR 43.10, 95% CI 2.63 to 706.74, one study, 509 women), vomiting (RR 9.05, 95% CI 1.18 to 69.32, two studies, 619 women), dizziness (RR 113.98, 95% CI 7.09 to 1833.69, one study, 509 women) and drowsiness (RR 77.59, 95% CI 4.80 to 1254.96, one study, 509 women) when compared with placebo or no treatment.There were no significant differences found for any of the outcomes in the studies comparing one strength versus a different strength of inhaled analgesia, in studies comparing different delivery systems or in the study comparing inhaled analgesia with TENS.Due to lack of data, the following outcomes were not analysed within the review: sense of control; satisfaction with childbirth experience; effect on mother/baby interaction; breastfeeding; admission to special care baby unit; poor infant outcomes at long-term follow-up; or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled analgesia appears to be effective in reducing pain intensity and in giving pain relief in labour. However, substantial heterogeneity was detected for pain intensity. Furthermore, nitrous oxide appears to result in more side effects compared with flurane derivatives. Flurane derivatives result in more drowsiness when compared with nitrous oxide. When inhaled analgesia is compared with no treatment or placebo, nitrous oxide appears to result in even more side effects such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and drowsiness. There is no evidence for differences for any of the outcomes comparing one strength verus a different strength of inhaled analgesia, comparing different delivery systems or comparing inhaled analgesia with TENS.

Local anaesthetic nerve block for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Local anaesthetic nerve block is an important modality for pain management in labour. Pudendal and paracervical block (PCB) are most commonly performed local anaesthetic nerve blocks which have been used for decades.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the efficacy and safety of local anaesthetic nerve blocks for pain relief in labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 February 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing pain management in labour with the use of local anaesthetic nerve blocks. We did not include results from quasi-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We designed a form to extract data. For eligible studies, two review authors extracted the data using the agreed form. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, we consulted a third person. We entered and analysed data using Review Manager software and checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 41 trials for consideration of inclusion into this review. We included only 12 RCTs (1549 participants) of unclear quality. We excluded 29 studies (30 reports). The majority of excluded studies were not relevant to this review, and a few were not randomised.Local anaesthetic nerve block versus placebo or no treatment. We found that more women were satisfied with pain relief after local anaesthetic nerve block (in particular 2% lidocaine PCB) than after placebo (one study, 198 participants, risk ratio (RR) 32.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 10.60 to 98.54). Local anaesthetic nerve block was associated with more side effects (one study, 200 participants, RR 29.0, 95% CI 1.75 to 479.61).Local anaesthetic nerve block (in particular, PCB) versus opioid Local anaesthetic nerve block (in particular, PCB) in comparison with opioid (in particular, intramuscular pethidine or fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia) was found to be more effective for pain relief (one study, 109 participants, RR 2.52, 95% CI 1.65 to 3.83) and was not associated with an increased rate of assisted vaginal birth (two studies, 129 participants, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.87) or with an increased caesarean section rate (two studies, 129 participants, RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.87).Local anaesthetic nerve block versus non-opioid agents Satisfaction with pain relief and rate of caesarean sections were found to be the same in women receiving local anaesthetic nerve block and non-opioid agents (one study, 100 participants, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.84; RR 2.0, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.36, respectively). More women who received non-opioid agent in comparison with women who received local anaesthetic nerve block required additional interventions for pain relief (one study, 100 participants, RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.25).Local anaesthetic nerve block using different anaesthetic agents There was no difference in pain relief satisfaction, assisted vaginal birth, caesarean section, side effects for mother, Apgar score or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit between different anaesthetic agents, e.g. bupivacaine, carbocaine, lidocaine, chloroprocaine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Local anaesthetic nerve blocks are more effective than placebo, opioid and non-opioid analgesia for pain management in labour based on RCTs of unclear quality and limited numbers. Side effects are more common after local anaesthetic nerve blocks in comparison with placebo. Different local anaesthetic agents used for pain relief provide similar satisfaction with pain relief. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm the findings, to assess other outcomes and to compare local anaesthetic nerve blocks with various modalities for pain relief in labour.

Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly.  Most women in labour require pain relief. Pain management strategies include non-pharmacological interventions (that aim to help women cope with pain in labour) and pharmacological interventions (that aim to relieve the pain of labour).

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage pain in labour. We considered findings from non-Cochrane systematic reviews if there was no relevant Cochrane review.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), The Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to 31 May 2011) to identify all relevant systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of pain management in labour. Each of the contributing Cochrane reviews (nine new, six updated) followed a generic protocol with 13 common primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Each Cochrane review included comparisons with placebo, standard care or with a different intervention according to a predefined hierarchy of interventions. Two review authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality, and data were checked by a third author. This overview is a narrative summary of the results obtained from individual reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 Cochrane reviews (255 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. For all interventions, with available data, results are presented as comparisons of: 1. Intervention versus placebo or standard care; 2. Different forms of the same intervention (e.g. one opioid versus another opioid); 3. One type of intervention versus a different type of intervention (e.g. TENS versus opioid). Not all reviews included results for all comparisons. Most reviews compared the intervention with placebo or standard care, but with the exception of opioids and epidural analgesia, there were few direct comparisons between different forms of the same intervention, and even fewer comparisons between different interventions. Based on these three comparisons, we have categorised interventions into: " What works" ,"What may work", and "Insufficient evidence to make a judgement".WHAT WORKSEvidence suggests that epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled analgesia effectively manage pain in labour, but may give rise to adverse effects. Epidural, and inhaled analgesia effectively relieve pain when compared with placebo or a different type of intervention (epidural versus opioids). Combined-spinal epidurals relieve pain more quickly than traditional or low dose epidurals. Women receiving inhaled analgesia were more likely to experience vomiting, nausea and dizziness.When compared with placebo or opioids, women receiving epidural analgesia had more instrumental vaginal births and caesarean sections for fetal distress, although there was no difference in the rates of caesarean section overall. Women receiving epidural analgesia were more likely to experience hypotension, motor blockade, fever or urinary retention. Less urinary retention was observed in women receiving CSE than in women receiving traditional epidurals. More women receiving CSE than low-dose epidural experienced pruritus.  WHAT MAY WORKThere is some evidence to suggest that immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture, massage and local anaesthetic nerve blocks or non-opioid drugs may improve management of labour pain, with few adverse effects.  Evidence was mainly limited to single trials. These interventions relieved pain and improved satisfaction with pain relief (immersion, relaxation, acupuncture, local anaesthetic nerve blocks, non-opioids) and childbirth experience (immersion, relaxation, non-opioids) when compared with placebo or standard care. Relaxation was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and acupuncture was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and caesarean sections.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make judgements on whether or not hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy, TENS, or parenteral opioids are more effective than placebo or other interventions for pain management in labour. In comparison with other opioids more women receiving pethidine experienced adverse effects including drowsiness and nausea. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most methods of non-pharmacological pain management are non-invasive and appear to be safe for mother and baby, however, their efficacy is unclear, due to limited high quality evidence. In many reviews, only one or two trials provided outcome data for analysis and the overall methodological quality of the trials was low. High quality trials are needed.There is more evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological methods, but these have more adverse effects. Thus, epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief but at the cost of increased instrumental vaginal birth.It remains important to tailor methods used to each woman's wishes, needs and circumstances, such as anticipated duration of labour, the infant's condition, and any augmentation or induction of labour.A major challenge in compiling this overview, and the individual systematic reviews on which it is based, has been the variation in use of different process and outcome measures in different trials, particularly assessment of pain and its relief, and effects on the neonate after birth. This made it difficult to pool results from otherwise similar studies, and to derive conclusions from the totality of evidence. Other important outcomes have simply not been assessed in trials; thus, despite concerns for 30 years or more about the effects of maternal opioid administration during labour on subsequent neonatal behaviour and its influence on breastfeeding, only two out of 57 trials of opioids reported breastfeeding as an outcome. We therefore strongly recommend that the outcome measures, agreed through wide consultation for this project, are used in all future trials of methods of pain management.