OBJECTIVE: To compare two World Health Organization (WHO) partographs - a composite partograph including latent phase with a simplified one without the latent phase. METHOD: Comparison of the two partographs in a crossover trial. RESULT: Eighteen physicians participated in this trial. One or the other partograph was used in 658 parturients. The mean (S.D.) user-friendliness score was lower for the composite partograph (6.2 (0.9) vs. 8.6 (1.0); P=0.002). Most participants (84%) experienced difficulty "sometimes" with the composite partograph, but no participant reported difficulty with the simplified partograph. While most maternal and perinatal outcomes were similar, labor values crossed the action line significantly more often when the composite partograph was used, and the women were more likely to undergo cesarean deliveries. CONCLUSION: The simplified WHO partograph was more user-friendly, was more to be completed than the composite partograph, and was associated with better labor outcomes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare two World Health Organization (WHO) partographs - a composite partograph including latent phase with a simplified one without the latent phase. METHOD: Comparison of the two partographs in a crossover trial. RESULT: Eighteen physicians participated in this trial. One or the other partograph was used in 658 parturients. The mean (S.D.) user-friendliness score was lower for the composite partograph (6.2 (0.9) vs. 8.6 (1.0); P=0.002). Most participants (84%) experienced difficulty "sometimes" with the composite partograph, but no participant reported difficulty with the simplified partograph. While most maternal and perinatal outcomes were similar, labor values crossed the action line significantly more often when the composite partograph was used, and the women were more likely to undergo cesarean deliveries. CONCLUSION: The simplified WHO partograph was more user-friendly, was more to be completed than the composite partograph, and was associated with better labor outcomes.