Effect of self-hypnosis on duration of labor and maternal and neonatal outcomes: a randomized controlled trial

The effect of antenatal hypnosis training on pharmacological analgesia use during labour and birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of hypnosis as a means of pain management during labour is becoming increasingly popular. While recent reviews have reported on pain perception, relaxation and other psychological benefits the impact of hypnosis on the use of pharmacological analgesia use has not been specifically examined.

QUESTION

For women in labour at term, does antenatal hypnosis instruction compared to no instruction result in decreased use of pharmacological analgesia and influence maternal and infant birth outcomes.

METHODS

Databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase were searched with dates ranging from 1947-2024. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared antenatal hypnosis training to no hypnosis control groups, published in English and reported on pharmacological analgesia use. The Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 for RCTs was used to assess design quality. Study selection, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were undertaken by two independent researchers.

FINDINGS

Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria (n=2937). The use of hypnosis did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of epidural use (RR. 0.79 95% CI 0.39-1.61) or other forms of pharmacological analgesia. Factors such as blinding of care providers to the participants allocated group may have reduced the chances of successful use of hypnosis. Variations in the presentation of hypnosis between studies may also impact on outcomes.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This review reports no effect on the use of pharmacological analgesia in women trained in hypnosis antenatally compared with those who were not. Our review does highlight several RCT design characteristics that could impact on the measurement and analysis of the use and efficacy of hypnosis.

The importance of highlighting the role of the self in hypnotherapy and hypnosis

The role of the patient in hypnotherapy can be underestimated by both the therapist and the patient. This is likely due to the focus the hypnosis literature has had on the role played by the hypnotist/therapist and less on the phenomenological control (control over subjective experience) applied by the patient. Whilst early approaches to hypnosis and hypnotherapy included concepts such as autosuggestion and self-hypnosis, the role of the self has been largely overlooked. Here we aim to highlight the importance of the self in hypnotherapy and hypnosis by considering the concept of self-hypnosis and how it relates to hetero-hypnosis. We will show that: 1) historically the self was an important component of the concept of hypnosis; 2) extant theories emphasise the role of the self in hypnosis; 3) self-hypnosis is largely indistinguishable from hetero-hypnosis; 4) self-hypnosis is as effective as hetero-hypnosis. We also argue that highlighting the role of the self in hypnotherapy and hypnosis could increase feelings of self-efficacy, especially given that it can be considered a skill that can be advanced and implies self-control and not "mind-control". Highlighting the role of phenomenological control by the patient could also increase the uptake of hypnotherapy as treatment for various disorders.

Stress-reducing interventions in pregnancy for the prevention of preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Maternal stress during pregnancy is an established risk factor for PTB. We aimed to review the effects of stress-reducing interventions during pregnancy on PTB. Studies reporting on stress-reducing interventions during pregnancy and PTB rates in general low-risk obstetric populations were included. PTB rates, low birth weight (LBW) rates, mean gestational age and birth weight, maternal anxiety and stress, and adverse perinatal outcomes were investigated. Data were extracted using a standardized extraction form, pooled effect sizes were calculated with the random effects model. Ten studies with a total of 4.816 women were included. The interventions included Pilates, yoga, a multidisciplinary stress reduction program, combination therapy (combining mindfulness, yoga, music, baby bonding, and education), and hypnosis. The incidence of PTB was significantly lower in the intervention group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 - 0.71). The overall quality of the included studies was low, and the risk of bias was high. In conclusion, this study provides evidence supporting the potential efficacy of stress-reducing interventions in reducing the incidence of PTB in low-risk women. We propose a RCT of high quality to determine the effectiveness of stress-reducing interventions in reducing PTB risk.

Psychological impact of hypnosis for pregnancy and childbirth: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of hypnosis as a complementary therapy in the perinatal field is expanding, however, there is little research for its impact on perinatal mental health. Here, we review studies that evaluate the effect of hypnosis on women's mental health and subjective experiences.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA protocol for articles with experimental designs of hypnosis that measured their impact on several psychological variables, such as the presence of symptoms of anxiety, depression or fear of childbirth. Studies were evaluated according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Checklists (CASP), and analyzed for their designs and intervention themes.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included and six themes emerged: preparation for birth and unexpected events; change in the perception and experience of pain; pregnant body as a natural process; connection with the baby during pregnancy; development of inner resources; and progressive relaxation and guided imagery. Although results were partly mitigated, most studies found positive effects of hypnosis in alleviating anxiety, depression, and fear towards birth, empowering women with a higher sense of confidence and improving the overall emotional experience. Two studies also indicate encouraging outcomes in postnatal wellbeing.

CONCLUSION

While it is still argued as to what extent hypnosis has positive effects on physical aspects of labor, the empowerment and the increase in confidence associated with hypnosis seem to bring a significant contribution to a more positive subjective experience of pregnancy and childbirth, and on women's overall wellbeing in the perinatal period.

The Use of Hypnosis during the Perinatal Period: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to identify current protocols involving the use of hypnosis during the perinatal period and to examine its effects on mothers' well-being. Seven electronic databases were searched for articles published from 1960 to April 1, 2021, that assessed the effectiveness of hypnosis during the perinatal period. All published randomized, controlled trials and nonrandomized, controlled trials studies assessing the effectiveness of hypnosis used during the perinatal period with healthy adult women were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions or the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Article screening, methodological-quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Twenty-one articles, corresponding to 16 studies met inclusion criteria. Apart from 2 studies, all included studies reported the benefits of implementing a hypnosis intervention during the perinatal period. However, methodological limitations relative to intervention implementation and assessment methods might have led to the observed variability in results across studies. Future studies should consider a more standardized methodology.

Effectiveness of Hypnosis for the Prevention of Anxiety During Coronary Angiography (HYPCOR study): a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Coronary angiography is the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. This intervention is nevertheless a source of anxiety for the patient both by its discomfort and by the consequences linked to the discovery of potential diseases.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of hypnosis in reducing anxiety in patients undergoing coronary angiography.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-nine patients with planned coronary angiography and no history of coronary angiography were randomized to a hypnosis or control group. Patients in the hypnosis group underwent a hypnosis session with self-hypnosis posthypnotic suggestions, while those in the control group had a conversational interview with the hypnotherapist. The primary endpoint was pre-exam anxiety level assessed by the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y A).

RESULTS

Performing a hypnosis session did not result in a significant decrease in anxiety before the intervention. Age, high trait anxiety, high state anxiety the day before, and belief that hypnosis works in general were associated with increased anxiety before the procedure. No adverse events were reported after hypnosis. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups for the occurrence of complications of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

In this study, performing a hypnosis session before coronary angiography did not reduce the state of anxiety measured just before the intervention. In all cases, the hypnotic experience appears to be positive for the patient, encouraging further research efforts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The research protocol has been registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT02818101; 29/06/2016) and with the ANSM (IDRCB 2016-A00205-46; 02/02/2016).

Adjuvant Hypnotherapy for Hyperemesis Gravidarum: A Randomized Pilot Study

Hyperemesis gravidarum, which requires hospitalization in approximately 1% to 5% of patients, is characterized by severe nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. This study investigated the effects of hypnosis on nausea, vomiting, use of antiemetic medications, and hospital stay among patients diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum. Patients were randomized to receive either conventional therapy alone (control condition, n = 23) or adjuvant hypnotherapy plus conventional therapy (treatment group, n = 18). Sociodemographic data, severity of nausea, frequency of vomiting per day, rescue medications used, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Participants in the treatment group received 2 sessions of hypnosis and were instructed in daily self-hypnosis practice. Those in the control group received treatment as usual. Results from this study indicated that adjunctive use of hypnotherapy with patients diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum experienced significantly reduced severity of nausea and frequency of vomiting compared to treatment-as-usual alone. Also, hospital stay was found to be shorter in the treatment group as compared to the control group. These findings are encouraging and suggest it is feasible and potentially beneficial to include adjunctive hypnotherapy to treat hyperemesis gravidarum.

Interventions for fear of childbirth including tocophobia

BACKGROUND

Many women experience fear of childbirth (FOC). While fears about childbirth may be normal during pregnancy, some women experience high to severe FOC. At the extreme end of the fear spectrum is tocophobia, which is considered a specific condition that may cause distress, affect well-being during pregnancy and impede the transition to parenthood. Various interventions have been trialled, which support women to reduce and manage high to severe FOC, including tocophobia.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for reducing fear of childbirth (FOC) compared with standard maternity care in pregnant women with high to severe FOC, including tocophobia.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2020, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We contacted researchers of trials which were registered and appeared to be ongoing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials which recruited pregnant women with high or severe FOC (as defined by the individual trial), for treatment intended to reduce FOC. Two review authors independently screened and selected titles and abstracts for inclusion. We excluded quasi-randomised and cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological approaches as recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the studies for risk of bias. A third review author checked the data analysis for accuracy. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome was a reduction in FOC. Secondary outcomes were caesarean section, depression, birth preference for caesarean section or spontaneous vaginal delivery, and epidural use.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials with a total of 1357 participants. The interventions included psychoeducation, cognitive behavioural therapy, group discussion, peer education and art therapy. We judged four studies as high or unclear risk of bias in terms of allocation concealment; we judged three studies as high risk in terms of incomplete outcome data; and in all studies, there was a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. None of the studies reported data about women's anxiety. Participating in non-pharmacological interventions may reduce levels of fear of childbirth, as measured by the Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire (W-DEQ), but the reduction may not be clinically meaningful (mean difference (MD) -7.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.19 to -1.97; 7 studies, 828 women; low-certainty evidence). The W-DEQ tool is scored from 0 to 165 (higher score = greater fear). Non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the number of women having a caesarean section (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 5 studies, 557 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between non-pharmacological interventions and usual care in depression scores measured with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) (MD 0.09, 95% CI -1.23 to 1.40; 2 studies, 399 women; low-certainty evidence). The EPDS tool is scored from 0 to 30 (higher score = greater depression). Non-pharmacological interventions probably lead to fewer women preferring a caesarean section (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 3 studies, 276 women; moderate-certainty evidence).  Non-pharmacological interventions may increase epidural use compared with usual care, but the 95% CI includes the possibility of a slight reduction in epidural use (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48; 2 studies, 380 women; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effect of non-pharmacological interventions for women with high to severe fear of childbirth in terms of reducing fear is uncertain. Fear of childbirth, as measured by W-DEQ, may be reduced but it is not certain if this represents a meaningful clinical reduction of fear. There may be little or no difference in depression, but there may be a reduction in caesarean section delivery. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure birth satisfaction and anxiety.

Perinatal psychological interventions to promote breastfeeding: a narrative review

Background

Emotional distress in mothers inhibits the let-down reflex, thus affecting breastfeeding self-efficacy. A breastfeeding mother may have to cope with both physical discomfort and psychological distress. However, literature on initiatives to improve breastfeeding rates has focused mainly on providing community-based peer support, or social policies. The aim of this review is to assess evidence on the effectiveness of a broad range of psychological interventions to facilitate breastfeeding for mothers facing difficulties around the time of delivery.

Methods

The review of the literature is derived from a search on Cochrane Library, PubMed, EBSCOhost, and PsycINFO for papers published since 1980. The approach was to explore quantitative and qualitative parameters. Quantitative parameters included breastfeeding initiation, duration, and composition. Qualitative parameters recorded the evaluation of maternal perceptions on breastfeeding success. The high heterogeneity of the studies led to a narrative review; 20 selected papers that report on breastfeeding outcomes and psychological programs met the inclusion criteria.

Results

The evidence on breastfeeding support through psychotherapy is heterogeneous and scant. Out of the included studies, 11 were randomized controlled trials, two were non-randomised trials, and two used a quasi-experimental design. None of the studies reported an increase in adverse breastfeeding outcomes. Three studies failed to report an association between psychological procedures and improved breastfeeding outcomes. A literature review showed that 17 (85%) analyses support stress-releasing techniques to facilitate breastfeeding.

Conclusions

This review suggests that relaxation interventions carefully tailored to address perinatal emotional distress may lead to important health benefits, including improvement in breastfeeding outcomes. There is also some indication that psychotherapy support while breastfeeding may have more impact than routine counselling. Conversely, this review did not find an association between self-hypnosis and breastfeeding outcomes. Data from this study can be used in designing prevention programs and future research with appropriate theoretical underpinning.

Effects of antenatal hypnosis on maternal salivary cortisol during childbirth and six weeks postpartum-A randomized controlled trial

Background

Cortisol has been used to capture psychophysiological stress during childbirth and postpartum wellbeing. We explored the effect of a brief antenatal training course in self-hypnosis on salivary cortisol during childbirth and 6 weeks postpartum.

Methods

In a randomized, controlled trial conducted at Aarhus University Hospital Skejby Denmark during the period January 2010 until October 2010, a total of 349 healthy nulliparous women were included. They were randomly allocated to a hypnosis group (n = 136) receiving three one-hour lessons in self-hypnosis with additional audio-recordings, a relaxation group (n = 134) receiving three one-hour lessons in various relaxation methods with audio-recordings for additional training, and a usual care group (n = 79) receiving ordinary antenatal care only. Salivary cortisol samples were collected during childbirth (at the beginning of the pushing state, 30 minutes, and 2 hours after childbirth), and 6 weeks postpartum (at wake up, 30 minutes after wake up, and evening). Cortisol concentrations were compared using a linear mixed-effects model. Correlations between cortisol concentrations and length of birth, experienced pain and calmness during birth were examined by a Spearman rank correlation test.

Findings

During childbirth, week correlations were found between cortisol concentrations 30 minutes after childbirth and length of birth. In the beginning of the pushing state and 2 hours after childbirth, we found a tendency towards higher cortisol concentrations in the hypnosis group compared to the other two groups (hypnosis versus relaxation p = 0.02 and 0.03, hypnosis versus usual care p = 0.08 and 0.05). No differences were observed in cortisol concentrations between the groups 30 minutes after childbirth (hypnosis versus relaxation p = 0.08, hypnosis versus usual care 0.10) or 6 weeks postpartum (hypnosis versus relaxation: p = 0.85, 0.51, and 0.68, hypnosis versus usual care: p = 0.85, 0.93, and 0.96).

Conclusion

Antenatal hypnosis training may increase the release of cortisol during childbirth with no long-term consequences. Further research is needed to help interpret these findings.

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We narratively described results of individual studies (drawing summarised evidence from single studies assessing distinct interventions).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies in this review (19 randomised trials, 1 controlled before-after study and 9 interrupted time series studies). Most of the studies (20 studies) were conducted in high-income countries and none took place in low-income countries. The studies enrolled a mixed population of pregnant women, including nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with a fear of childbirth, women with high levels of anxiety and women having undergone a previous caesarean section.Overall, we found low-, moderate- or high-certainty evidence that the following interventions have a beneficial effect on at least one primary outcome measure and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of adverse effects.Interventions targeted at women or familiesChildbirth training workshops for mothers alone may reduce caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.89) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.36). Childbirth training workshops for couples may reduce caesarean section (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.16). We judged this one study with 60 participants to have low-certainty evidence for the outcomes above.Nurse-led applied relaxation training programmes (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 104 participants, low-certainty evidence) and psychosocial couple-based prevention programmes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 147 participants, low-certainty evidence) may reduce caesarean section. Psychoeducation may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61; 371 participants, low-certainty evidence). The control group received routine maternity care in all studies.There were insufficient data on the effect of the four interventions on maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity.Interventions targeted at healthcare professionalsImplementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion for caesarean section indication slightly reduces the risk of overall caesarean section (mean difference in rate change -1.9%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.1; 149,223 participants). Implementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with audit and feedback also slightly reduces the risk of caesarean section (risk difference (RD) -1.8%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.2; 105,351 participants). Physician education by local opinion leader (obstetrician-gynaecologist) reduced the risk of elective caesarean section to 53.7% from 66.8% (opinion leader education: 53.7%, 95% CI 46.5 to 61.0%; control: 66.8%, 95% CI 61.7 to 72.0%; 2496 participants). Healthcare professionals in the control groups received routine care in the studies. There was little or no difference in maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity between study groups. We judged the certainty of evidence to be high.Interventions targeted at healthcare organisations or facilitiesCollaborative midwifery-labourist care (in which the obstetrician provides in-house labour and delivery coverage, 24 hours a day, without competing clinical duties), versus a private practice model of care, may reduce the primary caesarean section rate. In one interrupted time series study, the caesarean section rate decreased by 7% in the year after the intervention, and by 1.7% per year thereafter (1722 participants); the vaginal birth rate after caesarean section increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% after the intervention (684 participants). Maternal and neonatal mortality were not reported. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low.We studied the following interventions, and they either made little or no difference to caesarean section rates or had uncertain effects.Moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: antenatal education programmes for physiologic childbirth; antenatal education on natural childbirth preparation with training in breathing and relaxation techniques; computer-based decision aids; individualised prenatal education and support programmes (versus written information in pamphlet).Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: psychoeducation; pelvic floor muscle training exercises with telephone follow-up (versus pelvic floor muscle training without telephone follow-up); intensive group therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy and childbirth psychotherapy); education of public health nurses on childbirth classes; role play (versus standard education using lectures); interactive decision aids (versus educational brochures); labourist model of obstetric care (versus traditional model of obstetric care).We are very uncertain as to the effect of other interventions identified on caesarean section rates as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We evaluated a wide range of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section, mostly in high-income settings. Few interventions with moderate- or high-certainty evidence, mainly targeting healthcare professionals (implementation of guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion, implementation of guidelines combined with audit and feedback, physician education by local opinion leader) have been shown to safely reduce caesarean section rates. There are uncertainties in existing evidence related to very-low or low-certainty evidence, applicability of interventions and lack of studies, particularly around interventions targeted at women or families and healthcare organisations or facilities.

ABM Clinical Protocol #28, Peripartum Analgesia and Anesthesia for the Breastfeeding Mother

A central goal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is the development of clinical protocols, free from commercial interest or influence, for managing common medical problems that may impact breastfeeding success. These protocols serve only as guidelines for the care of breastfeeding mothers and infants and do not delineate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as standards of medical care. Variations in treatment may be appropriate according to the needs of an individual patient.

The effect of body and mind stress-releasing techniques on the breastfeeding of full-term babies; a critical analysis of published interventional studies

OBJECTIVE

To critically assess the effectiveness of complementary/alternative medicine modalities, comprising body/mind stress-releasing techniques, on the breastfeeding (BF) success of mothers of full-term newborns.

METHODS

Literature review in Medline and other available database sources until December 2015, and critical analysis of pooled data. The study selection included randomized-controlled trials, case-control studies, and case series.

RESULTS

The total number of analyzed studies was 9. Among them, three represented level-I, two level-II, one level-III, and three level-IV evidence. The pooled maternal population was 2135. Interventions that could influence cognition management seem effective in improving BF initiation and duration (strength of recommendation B), manual relaxation techniques in promoting BF initiation (strength of recommendation B), and auditory-mediated mind guidance in promoting BF duration (strength of recommendation C). The implementation of environmental sensory stimulations improves maternal perception about breastfeeding practice (strength of recommendation C).

CONCLUSIONS

Certain methods of complementary and alternative medicine show positive effect on breastfeeding. Further studies with good quality evidence, dedicated follow-up of the families after discharge, and strict definitions of breastfeeding and weaning are necessary to confirm the effectiveness of the identified interventions.

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.

The characteristics of women who use hypnotherapy for intrapartum pain management: Preliminary insights from a nationally-representative sample of Australian women

OBJECTIVES

This manuscript presents a preliminary examination of the characteristics of women who choose intrapartum hypnosis for pain management.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of 2445 women (31-36 years) from a sub-study of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH), employing Fisher exact tests.

SETTING

Australia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Use of intrapartum hypnosis, or hypnobirthing, for pain management during labour and birth.

RESULTS

Women using hypnobirthing were more likely to have consulted with an acupuncturist or naturopath, or attended yoga/meditation classes during pregnancy (p<0.0001). Use of CM products such as herbal medicines, aromatherapy oils, homoeopathy, herbal teas or flower essences (p<0.001) was also more common amongst these women. Women choosing hypnotherapy for intrapartum pain management less commonly identified as feeling safer knowing that an obstetrician is providing their care (p<0.001), and were more likely to labour in a birth centre or in a community centre (i.e. at home).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides preliminary analysis into an as yet unexamined topic in contemporary maternity health service utilisation. The findings from this analysis may be useful for maternity health professionals and policy makers when responding to the needs of women choosing to use hypnotherapy for intrapartum pain management.

Clinical Study: Change in Outlook Towards Birth After a Midwife Led Antenatal Education Programme Versus Hypnoreflexogenous Self-Hypnosis Training for Childbirth

Aim: To compare the change of maternal outlook towards birth due to a midwife led antenatal education programme versus hypnoreflexogenous self-hypnosis training for childbirth. Method: Before beginning of the classes and after the last class maternal perception on birth was evaluated using Osgood semantic differential questionnaire. The Gießen personality score was evaluated once. Results: 213 patients were enrolled in this study. 155 were in the midwife led education programme and 58 in the self-hypnosis training programme. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in regard of participants' characteristics, Gießen personality score and initial Osgood semantic differential scores. After the midwife led course childbirth was emotionally more negatively scored (displeasure, tarnishing, dimension evaluation [p < 0.05]), whereas after the hypnosis course childbirth was emotionally more positively evaluated (pleasure, harmony, dimension evaluation [p < 0.01] and brightness [p < 0.05]). Summary: In this study hypnoreflexogenous self-hypnosis training resulted in a positive maternal outlook towards childbirth, in comparison to the midwife led course. Further prospective randomised studies are required to test these initial results.

Unexpected consequences: women's experiences of a self-hypnosis intervention to help with pain relief during labour

Background

Self-hypnosis is becoming increasingly popular as a means of labour pain management. Previous studies have produced mixed results. There are very few data on women’s views and experiences of using hypnosis in this context. As part of a randomized controlled trial of self-hypnosis for intra-partum pain relief (the SHIP Trial) we conducted qualitative interviews with women randomized to the intervention arm to explore their views and experiences of using self-hypnosis during labour and birth.

Methods

Participants were randomly selected from the intervention arm of the study, which consisted of two antenatal self-hypnosis training sessions and a supporting CD that women were encouraged to listen to daily from 32 weeks gestation until the birth of their baby. Those who consented were interviewed in their own homes 8–12 weeks after birth. Following transcription, the interviews were analysed iteratively and emerging concepts were discussed amongst the authors to generate organizing themes. These were then used to develop a principal organizing metaphor or global theme, in a process known as thematic networks analysis.

Results

Of the 343 women in the intervention group, 48 were invited to interview, and 16 were interviewed over a 12 month period from February 2012 to January 2013.

Coding of the data and subsequent analysis revealed a global theme of ‘unexpected consequences’, supported by 5 organising themes, ‘calmness in a climate of fear’, ‘from sceptic to believer’, ‘finding my space’, ‘delays and disappointments’ and ‘personal preferences’. Most respondents reported positive experiences of self-hypnosis and highlighted feelings of calmness, confidence and empowerment. They found the intervention to be beneficial and used a range of novel strategies to personalize their self-hypnosis practice. Occasionally women reported feeling frustrated or disappointed when their relaxed state was misinterpreted by midwives on admission or when their labour and birth experiences did not match their expectations.

Conclusion

The women in this study generally appreciated antenatal self-hypnosis training and found it to be beneficial during labour and birth. The state of focused relaxation experienced by women using the technique needs to be recognized by providers if the intervention is to be implemented into the maternity service.

The effect of antenatal education in small classes on obstetric and psycho-social outcomes - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aims of antenatal education are broad and encompass outcomes related to pregnancy, birth, and parenthood. Both form and content of antenatal education have changed over time without evidence of effects on relevant outcomes. The effect of antenatal education in groups, with participation of a small number of participants, may differ from the effect of other forms of antenatal education due to, for example, group dynamic. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effects of antenatal education in small groups on obstetric as well as psycho-social outcomes.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) were searched. We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials irrespective of language, publication year, publication type, and publication status. Only trials carried out in the Western world were considered in this review. Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results are presented as structured summaries of the included trials and as forest plots.

RESULTS

We identified 5,708 records. Of these, 17 studies met inclusion criteria. Studies varied greatly in content of the experimental and control condition. All outcomes were only reported in a single or a few trials, leading to limited or uncertain confidence in effect estimates. Given the heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes and also the high risk of bias of studies, we are unable to draw definitive conclusions as to the impact of small group antenatal education on obstetric and psycho-social outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient evidence exists as to whether antenatal education in small classes is effective in regard to obstetric and psycho-social outcomes. We recommend updating this review following the emergence of well-conducted randomized controlled trials with a low risk of bias.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42013004319.