Experiences of pregnant women receiving osteopathic care

The Experience of Pregnancy-Related Lumbopelvic Pain: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

Background. Pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain is common and can impact quality of life. Purpose. To synthesize existing qualitative research on people's experiences of pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain in pregnancy and during the postpartum period. Method. A keyword search of four electronic databases between 2000 and 2022 was completed. Included studies were appraised and synthesized using a meta-ethnographic approach. Findings. Twenty-three studies were included. Analysis identified four core themes: (1) uncertainties about pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain, (2) struggles to attain achieve treatment and pain management, (3) profound activity consequences, and (4) emotional wellbeing, relationship, and identity impacts of pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain. Implications. The occupational therapy role with this population has not to our knowledge yet been described. Given the centrality of occupational disruption to the experience of this population we argue that developing and evaluating occupational therapy interventions to address functional, work, parenting and wellbeing outcomes for this population is warranted and should be prioritized.

Influence of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment on the Quality of Life and the Intensity of Lumbopelvic Pain in Pregnant Women in the Third Trimester: A Prospective Observational Study

During pregnancy, the various changes women undergo can affect their health status. Manual therapies are important aids because they do not use medication. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of osteopathic manipulative treatment on the intensity of lumbar and pelvic pain and changes in quality of life. This prospective study included women over 18 years old and between 27 and 41 weeks pregnant, and excluded women with fetal malformations, multiple fetuses, premature rupture of membranes, and in labor. Forty-six pregnant women were selected and divided into two groups of ≤3 and ≥4 visits. Statistically significant improvements were observed in the intensity of maximum low back pain (7.54 ± 1.47 vs. 3.815 ± 1.73, p ≤ 0.01) and minimum low back pain (5.67 ± 2.03 vs. 3.111 ± 1.67, p ≤ 0.01), maximum pelvic pain (6.54 ± 2.22 vs. 2.77 ± 1.64, p = 0.01), and minimum pelvic pain (5.615 ± 2.21 vs. 2.615 ± 1.66, p = 0.01). Both groups achieved improvements in quality of life indices, with the improvements achieved by the ≥4-visits group being statistically significant. Osteopathic treatment was effective in reducing the intensity of lumbar and pelvic pain and in improving the quality of life of pregnant women in the third trimester.

Low back pain patients' perceived effectiveness of utilizing complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review of qualitative studies

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review of qualitative studies is to explore patients' perceived effectiveness of utilizing complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for the treatment and/or management of low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, and CINAHL were systematically searched from database inception until May 2020. Eligible articles included qualitative data about LBP patients' perceptions of using CAM.

RESULTS

Of 1,567 items, 1,542 items were excluded; the remaining 25 articles were included in this review. Three themes emerged as follows: physical benefits; mental health benefits; and negative or no perceived effectiveness of CAM on patients with LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study explores perceptions of CAM effectiveness among patients with LBP. These findings provide valuable information to CAM and non-CAM practitioners regarding the importance of individualized patient care based on their preferences, values, needs, and perspectives. Further exploration could include practitioners' perceptions of CAM and their impact on the patient-practitioner relationship.

Pregnancy-Related Stress Among Pregnant Women Receiving Tocolytic and Non-Tocolytic Treatments Where Both Used Complementary Medicine

Objective: This study aimed to compare the pregnancy stress among pregnant women in receiving tocolytic and non-tocolytic treatments where both used complementary medicine.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 35 pregnant women receiving tocolytic treatment and 35 receiving non-tocolytic treatment, where both used complementary medicine in a medical center in central Taiwan. A basic information questionnaire that contained demographic variables and types of complementary medicine used and the Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale were used for the analysis.

Results: The types of complementary medicines were surveyed using the multiple-choice questionnaire. Natural products (77.5%) were most commonly used by pregnant women receiving tocolytic treatment, followed by alternative medicine (13.75%), manipulative and body-based practices (5%), and mind and body medicine (3.75%). In pregnant women who were receiving non-tocolytic treatment, natural products (59.1%) were most commonly used, followed by manipulative and body-based practices (16.4%), alternative medicine (15.4%), mind and body medicine (7.3%), and energy therapy (1.8%). According to the analysis of covariance test results, while both used complementary medicine in groups, pregnant women receiving tocolytic treatment were less stressed than those who were receiving non-tocolytic treatment (Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale score, p = 0.038), especially in dimension 2 (stress caused by infant care and changes in family relationships) (p = 0.015) and dimension 5 (stress caused by changes in physical appearance and function) (p = 0.008), which showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Linear regression analysis results showed that the gestational age significantly associated with pregnancy stress (Pregnancy Stress Rating Scale score, p = 0.029; dimension 2, p = 0.016; and dimension 5, p = 0.001).

Conclusion: Among both who used complementary medicine, pregnancy stress was significantly lower in pregnant women who were receiving tocolytic treatment than in those who were receiving non-tocolytic treatment. This finding can be used as a reference for future pregnant women’s health studies.