Literature DB >> 24043476

Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women.

Heather C Brown1, Shantini Paranjothy, Therese Dowswell, Jane Thomas.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of women have caesarean sections (CS) and while the rate varies, the number is increasing in many countries. This is of concern because higher CS rates do not confer additional health gain but may adversely affect maternal health and have implications for future pregnancies. Active management of labour has been proposed as a means of reducing CS rates. This refers to a package of care including strict diagnosis of labour, routine amniotomy, oxytocin for slow progress and one-to-one support in labour.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether active management of labour reduces CS rates in low-risk women and improves satisfaction. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (16 April 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing low-risk women receiving a predefined package of care (active management) with women receiving routine (variable) care. Trials where slow progress had been diagnosed before entry into the trial were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors extracted data. We assessed included studies for risk of bias. MAIN
RESULTS: We included seven trials, with a total of 5390 women. The quality of studies was mixed. The CS rate was slightly lower in the active management group compared with the group that received routine care, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01). However, in one study there was a large number of post-randomisation exclusions. On excluding this study, CS rates in the active management group were statistically significantly lower than in the routine care group (RR 0.77 95% CI 0.63 to 0.94). More women in the active management group had labours lasting less than 12 hours, but there was wide variation in length of labour within and between trials. There were no differences between groups in use of analgesia, rates of assisted vaginal deliveries or maternal or neonatal complications. Only one trial examined maternal satisfaction; the majority of women (over 75%) in both groups were very satisfied with care. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Active management is associated with small reductions in the CS rate, but it is highly prescriptive and interventional. It is possible that some components of the active management package are more effective than others. Further work is required to determine the acceptability of active management to women in labour.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24043476     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004907.pub3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  13 in total

Review 1.  Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.

Authors:  Innie Chen; Newton Opiyo; Emma Tavender; Sameh Mortazhejri; Tamara Rader; Jennifer Petkovic; Sharlini Yogasingam; Monica Taljaard; Sugandha Agarwal; Malinee Laopaiboon; Jason Wasiak; Suthit Khunpradit; Pisake Lumbiganon; Russell L Gruen; Ana Pilar Betran
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-09-28

Review 2.  An overview of systematic reviews of normal labor and delivery management.

Authors:  Mina Iravani; Mohsen Janghorbani; Elahe Zarean; Masoud Bahrami
Journal:  Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res       Date:  2015 May-Jun

3.  A method to assess obstetric outcomes using the 10-Group Classification System: a quantitative descriptive study.

Authors:  Janne Rossen; Miha Lucovnik; Torbjørn Moe Eggebø; Natasa Tul; Martina Murphy; Ingvild Vistad; Michael Robson
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Implementation of evidence-based practices in normal delivery care.

Authors:  Clodoaldo Tentes Côrtes; Sonia Maria Junqueira Vasconcellos de Oliveira; Rafael Cleison Silva Dos Santos; Adriana Amorim Francisco; Maria Luiza Gonzalez Riesco; Gilceria Tochika Shimoda
Journal:  Rev Lat Am Enfermagem       Date:  2018-03-08

5.  Relaxation of the one child policy and trends in caesarean section rates and birth outcomes in China between 2012 and 2016: observational study of nearly seven million health facility births.

Authors:  Juan Liang; Yi Mu; Xiaohong Li; Wen Tang; Yanping Wang; Zheng Liu; Xiaona Huang; Robert W Scherpbier; Sufang Guo; Mingrong Li; Li Dai; Kui Deng; Changfei Deng; Qi Li; Leni Kang; Jun Zhu; Carine Ronsmans
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-03-05

6.  Study protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the effect of a "birth environment room" versus a standard labour room on birth outcomes and the birth experience.

Authors:  Iben Lorentzen; Charlotte Sander Andersen; Henriette Svenstrup Jensen; Ann Fogsgaard; Maralyn Foureur; Finn Friis Lauszus; Ellen Aagaard Nohr
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2019-02-15

7.  Caesarean section in uninsured women in the USA: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ilir Hoxha; Medina Braha; Lamprini Syrogiannouli; David C Goodman; Peter Jüni
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-03-03       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  A cluster-randomized field trial to reduce cesarean section rates with a multifaceted intervention in Shanghai, China.

Authors:  Lulu Zhang; Lin Zhang; Meng Li; Jie Xi; Xiaohua Zhang; Zhenni Meng; Ying Wang; Huaping Li; Xiaohua Liu; Feihua Ju; Yuping Lu; Huijun Tang; Xianju Qin; Yanhong Ming; Rong Huang; Guohong Li; Hongying Dai; Rong Zhang; Min Qin; Liping Zhu; Jun Zhang
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  Shared decision-making in maternity care: Acknowledging and overcoming epistemic defeaters.

Authors:  Keith Begley; Deirdre Daly; Sunita Panda; Cecily Begley
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 2.431

10.  Assessing the association of oxytocin augmentation with obstetric anal sphincter injury in nulliparous women: a population-based, case-control study.

Authors:  Astrid B Rygh; Finn Egil Skjeldestad; Hartwig Körner; Torbjørn M Eggebø
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.