BACKGROUND: In 1996, the World Health Organization stated that 'childbirth is a natural process and in normal birth, there should be a valid reason to interfere with this natural process' and encouraged practices that are evidence-based. The practices encouraged included avoiding unnecessary augmentation of labour, facilitating upright position for birth and restricting the use of routine episiotomy. Many countries have been slow to fully implement evidence-based practice in maternity care. The aim of this study was to examine maternity hospital practices in Jordan and assess their consistency with evidence-based maternity care. METHODS: An explorative research design with non-participant observation was used. Data were collected from low-risk women during labour and birth using a questionnaire for maternal characteristics and an observational checklist. A proportional stratified sample was selected to recruit from three major public hospitals in Jordan. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 460 women were observed during labour and birth. The majority were multiparous (80%). A range of interventions were observed in women having a normal labour including augmentation (95%), continuous external fetal monitoring (77%), lithotomy position for birth (100%), and more than one third (37%) had an episiotomy with varying degrees of laceration (58%). CONCLUSIONS: Childbirth practices were largely not in accordance with the World Health Organization evidence-based practices for normal birth. High levels of interventions were observed, many of which may not have been necessary in this low-risk population. Further work needs to occur to explore the reasons why evidence-based practice is not implemented in these hospitals.
BACKGROUND: In 1996, the World Health Organization stated that 'childbirth is a natural process and in normal birth, there should be a valid reason to interfere with this natural process' and encouraged practices that are evidence-based. The practices encouraged included avoiding unnecessary augmentation of labour, facilitating upright position for birth and restricting the use of routine episiotomy. Many countries have been slow to fully implement evidence-based practice in maternity care. The aim of this study was to examine maternity hospital practices in Jordan and assess their consistency with evidence-based maternity care. METHODS: An explorative research design with non-participant observation was used. Data were collected from low-risk women during labour and birth using a questionnaire for maternal characteristics and an observational checklist. A proportional stratified sample was selected to recruit from three major public hospitals in Jordan. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 460 women were observed during labour and birth. The majority were multiparous (80%). A range of interventions were observed in women having a normal labour including augmentation (95%), continuous external fetal monitoring (77%), lithotomy position for birth (100%), and more than one third (37%) had an episiotomy with varying degrees of laceration (58%). CONCLUSIONS: Childbirth practices were largely not in accordance with the World Health Organization evidence-based practices for normal birth. High levels of interventions were observed, many of which may not have been necessary in this low-risk population. Further work needs to occur to explore the reasons why evidence-based practice is not implemented in these hospitals.