Literature DB >> 18727762

Women's positions during the second stage of labour: views of primary care midwives.

Ank de Jonge1, Doreth A M Teunissen, Mariet Th van Diem, Peer L H Scheepers, Antoine L M Lagro-Janssen.   

Abstract

AIM: This paper is a report of a study to explore the views of midwives on women's positions during the second stage of labour.
BACKGROUND: Many authors recommend encouraging women to use positions that are most comfortable to them. Others advocate encouragement of non-supine positions, because offering 'choice' is not enough to reverse the strong cultural norm of giving birth in the supine position. Midwives' views on women's positions have rarely been explored.
METHOD: Six focus groups were conducted in 2006-2007 with a purposive sample of 31 midwives. The data were interpreted using Thachuk's models of informed consent and informed choice.
FINDINGS: The models were useful in distinguishing between two different approaches of midwives to women's positions during labour. When giving informed consent, midwives implicitly or explicitly ask a woman's consent for what they themselves prefer. When offering informed choice, a woman's preference is the starting point, but midwives will suggest other options if this is in the woman's interest. Obstetric factors and working conditions are reasons to deviate from women's preferences.
CONCLUSIONS: To give women an informed choice about birthing positions, midwives need to give them information during pregnancy and discuss their position preferences. Women should be prepared for the unpredictability of their feelings in labour and for obstetric factors that may interfere with their choice of position. Equipment for non-supine births should be more midwife-friendly. In addition, midwives and students need to be able to gain experience in assisting births in non-supine positions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18727762     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04703.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adv Nurs        ISSN: 0309-2402            Impact factor:   3.187


  5 in total

1.  No reduction in instrumental vaginal births and no increased risk for adverse perineal outcome in nulliparous women giving birth on a birth seat: results of a Swedish randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Li Thies-Lagergren; Linda J Kvist; Kyllike Christensson; Ingegerd Hildingsson
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 3.007

2.  Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study.

Authors:  Pien M Offerhaus; Caroline Geerts; Ank de Jonge; Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven; Jos W R Twisk; Antoine L M Lagro-Janssen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-02-21       Impact factor: 3.007

3.  How do midwives facilitate women to give birth during physiological second stage of labour? A systematic review.

Authors:  Maria Healy; Viola Nyman; Dale Spence; René H J Otten; Corine J Verhoeven
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Striving for scientific stringency: a re-analysis of a randomised controlled trial considering first-time mothers' obstetric outcomes in relation to birth position.

Authors:  Li Thies-Lagergren; Linda J Kvist; Kyllike Christensson; Ingegerd Hildingsson
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Exploring the perspective of nursing staff or caregivers on birthing positions in Central India.

Authors:  Anita Yadav; Anusha Kamath; Shuchita Mundle; Jyoti Baghel; Charu Sharma; Avinash Prakash
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2021-04-08
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.