| Literature DB >> 30208157 |
Reginaldo Roque Mafetoni1, Mariana Haddad Rodrigues2, Lia Maristela da Silva Jacob3, Antonieta Keiko Kakuda Shimo4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the effectiveness of auriculotherapy on the anxiety of women during labor.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30208157 PMCID: PMC6136534 DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.2471.3030
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem ISSN: 0104-1169
Figure 1Location of the ear pressure points used in the study. Campinas, SP, Brazil, 2016
Figure 2Flow diagram of the recruitment and grouping of the participants. Campinas, SP, Brazil, 2016
Distribution of parturients according to study groups and obstetric characteristics. Campinas, SP, Brazil, 2016
| Variable | Study group | |||
| Intervention (N = 34) | Placebo (N = 34) | Control (N = 34) | p-value | |
| No. of prenatal consultations, mean (SD)* | 9.3 (2.2) | 9.9 (2.4) | 8.9 (2.5) | 0.4492† |
| No. of gestations, mean (SD)* | 1.6 (1.0) | 1.6 (1.0) | 1.7 (1.1) | 0.8193† |
| Parity, n (%) | ||||
| Nulliparous | 27 (79.4) | 25 (73.5) | 25 (73.5) | 0.8090‡ |
| Multiparous | 07 (20.6) | 09 (26.5) | 09 (26.5) | |
| Prior to the treatment | ||||
| Amniotic membranes, n (%) | ||||
| unruptured | 25 (73.5) | 21 (61.8) | 19 (55.9) | 0.3378§ |
| ruptured | 09 (26.5) | 13 (38.2) | 15 (44.1) | |
| Cervical dilation (cm), mean (SD)* | 4.6 (0.9) | 4.8 (0.8) | 4.5 (0.8) | 0.3915† |
| No. of contractions, mean (SD)* | 3.1 (0.9) | 3.2 (0.7) | 3.3 (0.9) | 0.5986† |
| Intensity of contractions, n (%) | ||||
| Mild | 2 (5.8) | 6 (17.6) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Moderate | 16 (47.1) | 17 (50.0) | 22 (64.7) | 0.0634§ |
| Severe | 16 (47.1) | 11 (32.4) | 12 (35.3) | |
| After treatment | ||||
| Accelerated labor | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
| Prostaglandin | 07 (20.6) | 10 (29.4) | 11 (32.4) | 0.5273‡ |
| Oxytocin | 18 (52.9) | 16 (47.1) | 21 (61.8) | 0.4725‡ |
p < 0.05. *standard deviation †Kruskal-Wallis test ‡Chi-square test §Fisher’s exact test
Differences in HAM-A* and degree of anxiety among study groups. Campinas, SP, Brazil, 2016
| Variable | Study group | ||
| Intervention | Placebo | Control | |
| (N = 34) | (N = 34) | (N = 34) | |
| Prior to treatment | mean ± SD† | mean ± SD† | mean ± SD† |
| HAM-A* | 5.6 ± 4.5 | 5.6 ± 5.5 | 6.8 ± 5.7 |
| Anxiety level | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
| None | 00 (0.0) | 04 (11.8) | 04 (11.8) |
| Mild | 33 (97.1) | 29 (85.3) | 28 (82.3) |
| Moderate | 01 (2.9) | 01 (2.9) | 02 (5.9) |
| Severe | 00 (0.0) | 00 (0.0) | 00 (0.0) |
| (N = 29) | (N = 33) | (N = 32) | |
| 120 min after treatment | mean ± SD† | mean ± SD† | mean ± SD† |
| HAM-A* | 5.7 ± 5.0 | 9.3 ± 7.9 | 10.5 ± 7.1 |
| Anxiety level | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
| None | 03 (10.3) | 03 (9.1) | 01 (3.1) |
| Mild | 26 (89.7) | 21 (63.6) | 25 (78.1) |
| Moderate | 00 (0.0) | 09 (27.3) | 04 (12.5) |
| Severe | 00 (0.0) | 0.0 (0.0) | 02 (6.3) |
*HAM-A - Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale †standard deviation
Comparisons in the HAM-A* scores and moments of evaluation among the study groups. Campinas, SP, Brazil, 2016
| Comparison | Mean difference | Confidence interval (95%) | p-value | |
| Lower limit | Upper limit | |||
| HAM-A*, prior to treatment | ||||
| Intervention | 0.05 | -2.42 | 2.52 | 0.9682† |
| Intervention | 1.23 | -1.31 | 3.77 | 0.3441† |
| Placebo | -1.18 | -3.88 | 1.53 | 0.3938† |
| HAM-A*, at 120 min of treatment | ||||
| Intervention | 3.62 | 0.42 | 6.81 | 0.0265† |
| Intervention | 4.88 | 1.87 | 7.88 | 0.0015† |
| Placebo | -1.26 | -4.84 | 2.33 | 0.4915† |
*HAM-A - Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale
p < 0.05. †GEE test - Generalized estimating equations