AIMS: To investigate childbearing women's views, experiences and decision-making related to epidural analgesia in labour. DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search was implemented across Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE from 2000 to September 2018. The literature search was undertaken in January 2018 and updated in September 2018. Thirty papers were selected. RESULTS: Four overarching synthesized findings were identified: (a) choice; (b) pain management experience; (c) lack of information; and (d) information provision and consent. REVIEW METHODS: Quality appraisal was conducted using JBI levels of evidence and other established tools. NVivo was used to independently dual code and thematically synthesize qualitative data. A narrative synthesis of the quantitative findings from the included studies was undertaken. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess confidence in the review findings based on the qualitative data. A set of integrated mixed-methods synthesized findings was produced. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for practice based on the systematic review findings are that midwives should dedicate time to discuss epidural with women and birth partners, ideally during the second or third trimester of pregnancy, asking women what coping strategies or pain relief they have been considering, if any. The factors which may influence the woman's choice of epidural, including pain threshold, ability to cope with pain, timing of epidural and length of labour should be continuously evaluated during labour. The midwife should remain with women after an epidural has been sited, demonstrating understanding of the woman's choice and providing an opportunity for discussion of plans for the remaining labour and birth. IMPACT: The findings of this systematic review can inform both healthcare professionals and service users on various aspects of the decision-making process about the use of epidural analgesia in labour. Data can be transferable to similar settings in high-income countries.
AIMS: To investigate childbearing women's views, experiences and decision-making related to epidural analgesia in labour. DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search was implemented across Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE from 2000 to September 2018. The literature search was undertaken in January 2018 and updated in September 2018. Thirty papers were selected. RESULTS: Four overarching synthesized findings were identified: (a) choice; (b) pain management experience; (c) lack of information; and (d) information provision and consent. REVIEW METHODS: Quality appraisal was conducted using JBI levels of evidence and other established tools. NVivo was used to independently dual code and thematically synthesize qualitative data. A narrative synthesis of the quantitative findings from the included studies was undertaken. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess confidence in the review findings based on the qualitative data. A set of integrated mixed-methods synthesized findings was produced. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for practice based on the systematic review findings are that midwives should dedicate time to discuss epidural with women and birth partners, ideally during the second or third trimester of pregnancy, asking women what coping strategies or pain relief they have been considering, if any. The factors which may influence the woman's choice of epidural, including pain threshold, ability to cope with pain, timing of epidural and length of labour should be continuously evaluated during labour. The midwife should remain with women after an epidural has been sited, demonstrating understanding of the woman's choice and providing an opportunity for discussion of plans for the remaining labour and birth. IMPACT: The findings of this systematic review can inform both healthcare professionals and service users on various aspects of the decision-making process about the use of epidural analgesia in labour. Data can be transferable to similar settings in high-income countries.
Authors: Semra Ozdemir; Teresa Chen; Chin Wen Tan; Wei Han Melvin Wong; Hon Sen Tan; Eric Andrew Finkelstein; Ban Leong Sng Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 2.711