Vaginal Examination During Normal Labor: Routine Examination or Routine Intervention?

Informed consent to midwifery practices and interventions during the second stage of labor-An observational study within the Oneplus trial

OBJECTIVES

To study informed consent to midwifery practices and interventions during the second stage of labor and to investigate the association between informed consent and experiences of these practices and interventions and women's experiences of the second stage of labor.

METHODS

This study uses an observational design with data from a follow-up questionnaire sent to women one month after giving birth spontaneously in the Oneplus trial, a study aimed at evaluating collegial midwifery assistance to reduce severe perineal trauma. The trial was conducted between 2018-2020 at five Swedish maternity wards and trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov, no NCT03770962. The follow-up questionnaire contained questions about experiences of the second stage of labor, practices and interventions used and whether the women had provided informed consent. Evaluated practices and interventions were the use of warm compresses held at the perineum, manual perineal protection, vaginal examinations, perineal massage, levator pressure, intermittent catheterization of the bladder, fundal pressure, and episiotomy. Associations between informed consent and women's experiences were assessed by univariate and multivariable logistic regression.

FINDINGS

Of the 3049 women participating in the trial, 2849 consented to receive the questionnaire. Informed consent was reported by less than one in five women and was associated with feelings of being safe, strong, and in control. Informed consent was further associated with more positive experiences of clinical practices and interventions, and with less discomfort and pain from interventions involving physical penetration of the genital area.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that informed consent during the second stage is associated with feelings of safety and of being in control. With less than one in five women reporting informed consent to all practices and interventions performed by midwives, the results emphasize the need for further action to enhance midwives' knowledge and motivation in obtaining informed consent prior to performance of interventions.

Exploring women's experiences, views and understanding of vaginal examinations during intrapartum care: A meta-ethnographic synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review exploring women's experiences, views and understanding of any vaginal examinations during intrapartum care, in any care setting and by any healthcare professional. Intrapartum vaginal examination is deemed both an essential assessment tool and routine intervention during labour. It is an intervention that can cause significant distress, embarrassment, and pain for women, as well as reinforce outdated gender roles. In view of its widespread and frequently reported excessive use, it is important to understand women's views on vaginal examination to inform further research and current practice.

DESIGN

A systematic search and meta-ethnography synthesis informed by Noblit and Hare (1988) and the eMERGe guidance (France et al. 2019) was undertaken. Nine electronic databases were searched systematically using predefined search terms in August 2021, and again in March 2023. Studies meeting the following criteria: English language, qualitative and mixed-method studies, published from 2000 onwards, and relevant to the topic, were eligible for quality appraisal and inclusion.

FINDINGS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Three from Turkey, one from Palestine, one from Hong Kong and one from New Zealand. One disconfirming study was identified. Following both a reciprocal and refutational synthesis, four 3rd order constructs were formed, titled: Suffering the examination, Challenging the power dynamic, Cervical-centric labour culture embedded in societal expectations, and Context of care. Finally, a line of argument was arrived at, which brought together and summarised the 3rd order constructs.

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF PRACTICE

The dominant biomedical discourse of vaginal examination and cervical dilatation as central to the birthing process does not align with midwifery philosophy or women's embodied experience. Women experience examinations as painful and distressing but tolerate them as they view them as necessary and unavoidable. Factors such as context of care setting, environment, privacy, midwifery care, particularly in a continuity of carer model, have considerable positive affect on women's experience of examinations. Further research into women's experiences of vaginal examination in different care models as well as research into less invasive intrapartum assessment tools that promote physiological processes is urgently required.

Vaginal Examinations During Childbirth: Consent, Coercion and COVID-19

In this paper I assess the labour ward admission policies introduced by some National Health Service (NHS) trusts during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that these intersected with other policies in a manner which may have coerced birthing people into consenting to vaginal examinations they might have otherwise refused. In order to fully understand the potential severity of these policies, I situate this critique in the historical and contemporary context of the problematic relationship between consent and vaginal examinations. Identifying the legal wrongs associated with performing coerced vaginal examinations, I highlight that the law is inadequately equipped to provide appropriate redress. Further, I illustrate that the issue explored in this paper reflects broader problems which exist with regard to the focus of, and the (under)investment in, the maternity services.

An ethnographic study of the interaction between philosophy of childbirth and place of birth

BACKGROUND

Organisational culture and place of birth have an impact on the variation in birth outcomes seen in different settings.

AIM

To explore how childbirth is constructed and influenced by context in three birth settings in Australia.

METHOD

This ethnographic study included observations of 25 healthy women giving birth in three settings: home (9), two birth centres (10), two obstetric units (9). Individual interviews were undertaken with these women at 6-8 weeks after birth and focus groups were conducted with 37 midwives working in the three settings: homebirth (11), birth centres (10) and obstetric units (16).

RESULTS

All home birth participants adopted a forward leaning position for birth and no vaginal examinations occurred. In contrast, all women in the obstetric unit gave birth on a bed with at least one vaginal examination. One summary concept emerged, Philosophy of childbirth and place of birth as synergistic mechanisms of effect. This was enacted in practice through 'running the gauntlet', based on the following synthesis: For women and midwives, depending on their childbirth philosophy, place of birth is a stimulus for, or a protection from, running the gauntlet of the technocratic approach to birth. The birth centres provided an intermediate space where the complex interplay of factors influencing acceptance of, or resistance to the gauntlet were most evident.

CONCLUSIONS

A complex interaction exists between prevailing childbirth philosophies of women and midwives and the birth environment. Behaviours that optimise physiological birth were associated with increasing philosophical, and physical, distance from technocratic childbirth norms.

Why ‘normal’ feels so bad: violence and vaginal examinations during labour – a (feminist) phenomenology

In this article, I argue that many women lack the epistemic resources that would allow them to recognise the practice of vaginal examinations during childbirth as violent or as unnecessary and potentially declinable. I address vaginal examinations during childbirth as a special case of obstetric violence, in which women frequently lack the epistemic resources necessary to recognise the practice as violent not only because of the inherent difficulty of recognising violence that happens in an ‘essentially benevolent’ setting such as the medical one, but also, and mainly, due to the pervasive sexual reification of women under patriarchy and the pervasive shame to which women are subjected. My argument is that the practice of vaginal examinations is indeed experienced – bodily apprehended – as violent by many women, but that full epistemic recognition of this violence is frequently obstructed because the experience perfectly coincides with the normal phenomenological situation of women within patriarchy and thus cannot really be framed as violent. A phenomenological analysis presenting the embodied experience of women under patriarchy as always already essentially tied to sexual availability and commodification, and to shame, will explain this epistemological impairment. A phenomenological take on Judith Butler’s distinction between ‘recognition’ and ‘apprehension’ informs my analysis: I deploy it to provide a richer, more nuanced response to the question of why vaginal examinations are not fully recognised and expressed as violent – even when they are, frequently, apprehended as such. Furthermore, Butler’s ideas about the epistemic ‘framings’ through which we make sense of different kinds of lives (grievable versus ungrievable) will help me to explain how the patriarchal sexual reification of women in fact already frames sexual violence as not-violence – which ultimately also prevents labouring women (and obstetrics staff) from recognising vaginal examinations during labour as violence.

Ultrasound is better tolerated than vaginal examination in and before labour

BACKGROUND

Intrapartum ultrasound has been proposed as a method of assessing labour progress but its acceptability has not been comprehensively assessed.

AIMS

We evaluated the acceptability of intrapartum ultrasound in women having vaginal examination (VE) and ultrasound (US) assessment (transabdominal (TA) and transperineal (TP)) prior to delivery, with and without regional analgesia (RA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women at 24-42 weeks gestation were included in a prospective observational cohort study. The acceptability of digital VE and TP US were assessed pre- and post-examination using the modified validated Wijma Delivery Experience Questionnaire. Acceptability scores ranged 6-36 (6 being most and 36 being least positive) in six domains: positive-trust and relax, negative-harmful to baby, worrying, painful, intrusive.

RESULTS

Of 119 women recruited, 104 completed both pre- and post-assessment questionnaires. Eighty-nine per cent of women were nulliparous with median gestation 40 + 2 weeks (25-42+1 ). Thirty-two per cent had RA before assessment, 91% in total. The combined acceptability scores of both negative and positive experiences (6 = most acceptable, 36 = least acceptable) for VE and US pre-assessment were 15 and 7 respectively (P < 0.0001: Mann-Whitney U-test). VE was associated with less positive / more negative domain scoring post-assessment 12 and 6, respectively (P < 0.0001). Although RA made no difference to the perceived experience pre-VE (P = 0.9), post-VE, women with RAs considered VEs more acceptable than those without RA (P = 0.0022).

CONCLUSION(S)

This is the first study to comprehensively assess the acceptability of VE and intrapartum US. US assessment prior to delivery is more acceptable than VE. RA ameliorated the negative experience of the VE post-assessment.

Silent voices: institutional disrespect and abuse during delivery among women of Varanasi district, northern India

BACKGROUND

A considerable amount of qualitative evidence reporting abusive treatment of women during delivery by health providers is available. However, there is a dearth of information regarding the actual prevalence and nature of such abuse, which this study aimed to explore.

METHODS

We conducted a community based cross-sectional study using a contextually adapted version of the Staha (meaning 'respect' in Swahili) project questionnaire among 410 rural women who delivered between June, 2014 to August 2015 at any health facility of Varanasi district, northern India. We selected the women through multi-stage cluster random sampling from two rural blocks of Varanasi, which recorded the highest number of institutional deliveries in 2014-15.

RESULTS

The frequency of any abusive behavior (excluding inappropriate demands of money due to its high prevalence-90.5%) was 28.8%. The reported abuses were non-dignified care including verbal abuse and derogatory insults related to the woman's sexual behavior (19.3%); physical abuse (13.4%); neglect or abandonment (8.5%); non-confidential care (5.6%); and feeling humiliation due to lack of cleanliness bordering on filth (4.9%). Women were abused during labor or delivery irrespective of their socio-demographic background. Bivariate analysis using Chi-square tests showed statistically significant associations between abuse and provider type, facility type, and presence of complications during delivery. Binary logistic regression indicated that the odds of being abused was four times higher in those women who experienced complications during delivery. Though statistically insignificant, and contrary to expectations, women also seemed to be abused in private institutions; but with a lower frequency and of lesser severity.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of disrespect and abuse during labor or delivery was high among women irrespective of their socio-demographic background or delivery conditions in government as well as private health facilities. If the problem of disrespect and abuse is not addressed, it can be assumed that such harsh practices might promote home deliveries, which despite being more unsafe provide an empathetic environment in lieu of safe facility-based birthing options.

The feasibility and accuracy of ultrasound assessment in the labor room

Objective: Vaginal examination is widely used to assess the progress of labor; however, it is subjective and poorly reproducible. We aim to assess the feasibility and accuracy of transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound compared to vaginal examination in the assessment of labor and its progress. Methods: Women were recruited as they presented for assessment of labor to a tertiary inner city maternity service. Paired vaginal and ultrasound assessments were performed in 192 women at 24-42 weeks. Fetal head position was assessed by transabdominal ultrasound defined in relation to the occiput position transformed to a 12-hour clock face; fetal head station defined as head-perineum distance by transperineal ultrasound; cervical dilatation by anterior to posterior cervical rim measurement and caput succedaneum by skin-skull distance on transperineal ultrasound. Results: Fetal head position was recorded in 99.7% (298/299) of US and 51.5% (154/299) on vaginal examination (p < .0001 ¹ ). Bland-Altman analysis showed 95% limits of agreement, -5.31 to 4.84 clock hours. Head station was recorded in 96.3% (308/320) on vaginal examination (VE) and 95.9% (307/320) on US (p = .79 ¹ ). Head station and head perineum distance were negatively correlated (Spearman's r = -.57, p < .0001). 54.4% (178/327) of cervical dilatation measurements were determined using US and 100% on VE/speculum (p < .0001). Bland-Altman analysis showed 95% limits of agreement -2.51-2.16 cm. The presence of caput could be assessed in 98.4% (315/320) of US and was commented in 95.3% (305/320) of VEs, with agreement for the presence of caput of 76% (p < .05). Fetuses with caput greater than 10 mm had significantly lower head station (p < .0001). Conclusions: We describe comprehensive ultrasound assessments in the labor room that could be translated to the assessment of women in labor. Fetal head position is unreliably determined by vaginal examination and agrees poorly with US. Head perineum distance has a moderate correlation with fetal head station in relation to the ischial spines based on vaginal examination. Cervical dilatation is not reliably assessed by ultrasound except at dilatations of less than 4 cm. Caput is readily quantifiable by ultrasound and its presence is associated with lower fetal head station. Transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound is feasible in the labor room with an accuracy that is generally greater than vaginal examinations.

Routine vaginal examinations for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term

BACKGROUND

Vaginal examinations have become a routine intervention in labour as a means of assessing labour progress. Used at regular intervals, either alone or as a component of the partogram (a pre-printed form providing a pictorial overview of the progress of labour), the aim is to assess if labour is progressing physiologically, and to provide an early warning of slow progress. Abnormally slow progress can be a sign of labour dystocia, which is associated with maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, particularly in low-income countries where appropriate interventions cannot easily be accessed. However, over-diagnosis of dystocia can lead to iatrogenic morbidity from unnecessary intervention (e.g. operative vaginal birth or caesarean section). It is, therefore, important to establish whether or not the routine use of vaginal examinations is an effective intervention, both as a diagnostic tool for true labour dystocia, and as an accurate measure of physiological labour progress.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, acceptability and consequences of digital vaginal examination(s) (alone or within the context of the partogram) with other strategies, or different timings, to assess progress during labour at term.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 February 2013) and reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vaginal examinations (including digital assessment of the consistency of the cervix, and the degree of dilation and position of the opening of the uterus (cervical os); and position and station of the fetal presenting part, with or without abdominal palpation) compared with other ways of assessing progress of labour. We also included studies assessing different timings of vaginal examinations. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. We also excluded trials with a primary focus on assessing progress of labour using the partogram (of which vaginal examinations is one component) as this is covered by another Cochrane review. However, studies where vaginal examinations were used within the context of the partogram were included if the studies were randomised according to the vaginal examination component.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors assessed the studies for inclusion in the review. Two authors undertook independent data extraction and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. A third review author also checked data extraction and risk of bias. Data entry was checked.

MAIN RESULTS

We found two studies that met our inclusion criteria but they were of unclear quality. One study, involving 307 women, compared vaginal examinations with rectal examinations, and the other study, involving 150 women, compared two-hourly with four-hourly vaginal examinations. Both studies were of unclear quality in terms of risk of selection bias, and the study comparing the timing of the vaginal examinations excluded 27% (two hourly) to 28% (four hourly) of women after randomisation because they no longer met the inclusion criteria.When comparing routine vaginal examinations with routine rectal examinations to assess the progress of labour, we identified no difference in neonatal infections requiring antibiotics (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 8.07, one study, 307 infants). There were no data on the other primary outcomes of length of labour, maternal infections requiring antibiotics and women's overall views of labour. The study did show that significantly fewer women reported that vaginal examination was very uncomfortable compared with rectal examinations (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.70, one study, 303 women). We identified no difference in the secondary outcomes of augmentation, caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth, operative vaginal birth, perinatal mortality and admission to neonatal intensive care.Comparing two-hourly vaginal examinations with four-hourly vaginal examinations in labour, we found no difference in length of labour (mean difference in minutes (MD) -6.00, 95% CI -88.70 to 76.70, one study, 109 women). There were no data on the other primary outcomes of maternal or neonatal infections requiring antibiotics, and women's overall views of labour. We identified no difference in the secondary outcomes of augmentation, epidural for pain relief, caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and operative vaginal birth.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of women's preferences, vaginal examination seems to be preferred to rectal examination. For all other outcomes, we found no evidence to support or reject the use of routine vaginal examinations in labour to improve outcomes for women and babies. The two studies included in the review were both small, and carried out in high-income countries in the 1990s.  It is surprising that there is such a widespread use of this intervention without good evidence of effectiveness, particularly considering the sensitivity of the procedure for the women receiving it, and the potential for adverse consequences in some settings.The effectiveness of the use and timing of routine vaginal examinations in labour, and other ways of assessing progress in labour, including maternal behavioural cues, should be the focus of new research as a matter of urgency. Women's views of ways of assessing labour progress should be given high priority in any future research in this area.