| Literature DB >> 30909953 |
Julius Sama Dohbit1,2, Esther Meka1,2, Joel Noutakdie Tochie3, Myriam Mbia Koudo Ze2, Felix Essiben2, Valirie Ndip Agbor4,5, Jan Rene Nkeck6, Pascal Foumane1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In Africa, 80% of women ingest traditional medicine (TM) during pregnancy. Although widely used in Cameroon, no study in has either demonstrated its safety or effectiveness. Hence, we sought to determine the effects of TM ingestions during the peri-partum period on maternal and foetal outcomes. A cohort study was conducted from January to April 2016 in two referral maternity departments of Cameroon. We consecutively enrolled all consenting parturients with gestational age above 28 weeks. We divided them into two groups; exposed and unexposed. The exposure studied was ingestion of TM within 72 h prior to delivery. Variables studied were socio-demographic characteristics, type and frequency of TM ingested and details of labour.Entities:
Keywords: Foetal; Labour; Maternal; Outcome; Traditional medicine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30909953 PMCID: PMC6434835 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-019-4199-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Distribution of the list of Traditional Medicine used in terms of percentage use; reason for using and subjective perception
| Traditional medicine | Number (%) | Most reported reason for its intake | Subjective perception |
|---|---|---|---|
| Honey | 41 (28.2%) | Ease labour | Very effective |
| 35 (23.7%) | Ease delivery | Very effective | |
| Hibiscus leaves ( | 29 (20%) | Ease delivery | Very effective |
| Brimstone tree leaves ( | 26 (17.7%) | To induce labour | Very effective |
| Lemon grass ( | 17 (11.4%) | Ease delivery | Very effective |
| Wild mango ( | 15 (10%) | Manage constipation | Very effective |
| 9 (3.4%) | Relieve chronic pelvic pains | Very effective | |
| Unknown herbs | 18 (12.3%) | Unknown | Unknown |
General characteristics of the study population
| Variables | Total | Exposed group | Non-exposed group | Risk ratio (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| 15–25 | 181 (30) | 38 (25.9) | 143 (31.4) | 0.76 (0.50–1.16) | 0.122 |
| 26–35 | 181 (30) | 79 (56.5) | 238 (57.2) | 1.06 (0.73–1.54) | 0.407 |
| 36–45 | 105 (17.3) | 30 (20.6) | 75 (16.4) | 1.30 (0.81–2.09) | 0.164 |
|
| |||||
| Single | 291 (48.3) | 64 (43.5) | 227 (49.8) | 0.78 (0.53–1.13) | 0.111 |
| Married | 220 (36.5) | 52 (35.4) | 168 (36.8) | 0.94 (0.63–1.38) | 0.413 |
| Divorced | 7 (1.2) | 2 (1.4) | 5 (1.1) | 1.24 (0.24–6.48) | 0.540 |
| Widow | 19 (0.2) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.2) | 0 | 0.756 |
| Liberal unions | 84 (13.8) | 29 (19.7) | 55 (12.1) | 1.79 (1.10–2.94) | 0.016 |
|
| |||||
| No formal education | 30 (5) | 9 (6.1) | 21 (4.6) | 1.35 (0.60–0.29) | 0.294 |
| Primary | 94 (15.6) | 20 (13.6) | 74 (16.2) | 0.81 (0.48–1.39) | 0.267 |
| Secondary | 277 (45.9) | 57 (38.8) | 220 (48.2) | 0.68 (0.47–0.99) | 0.028 |
| Tertiary | 202 (33.5) | 61 (41.5) | 141 (30.9) | 1.58 (1.08–2.33) | 0.012 |
Logistic regression analysis of the influence of traditional medicine on labour and delivery
| Variables | Total | Exposed group | Non-exposed group | Risk ratio, (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Lost of liquor | 88 (14.6) | 15 (10.2) | 73 (16) | 0.66 (0.41–1.08) | 0.051 |
| Vaginal bleeding | 100 (16.6) | 34 (23.1) | 66 (14.5) | 1.51 (1.10–2.08) | 0.011 |
| Labour pains | 346 (57.4) | 90 (61.2) | 256 (56.1) | 1.17 (0.88–1.57) | 0.161 |
| APGAR score at 1st min < 7 | 94 (14.4) | 20 (13.4) | 74 (14.7) | 0.90 (0.59–1.37) | 0.367 |
| APGAR score at 5th min < 7 | 71 (10.9) | 13 (8.6) | 58 (11.6) | 0.77 (0.46–1.28) | 0.187 |
| Dystocic labour | 160 (26.5) | 51 (34) | 109 (23.9) | 1.45 (1.10–1.91) | 0.007 |
| Tachysystole | 279 (46.3) | 81 (55.1) | 198 (43.4) | 1.27 (1.06–1.52) | 0.008 |
| Uterine atony | 10 (1.7) | 7 (4.8) | 3 (0.7) | 7.24 (1.90–27.63) | 0.002 |