Literature DB >> 8079605

Experience of childbirth in birth center care. A randomized controlled study.

U Waldenström1, C A Nilsson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to compare women's use of obstetric analgesia, experience of pain in labor, and other aspects of the childbirth experience at an in-hospital birth center and with standard maternity care. The birth center care was characterized by comprehensive antenatal, intrapartum and post partum care, on the same premises with a home-like environment and the same team of midwives, restricted use of medical technology and pharmacological pain relief, and discharge within 24 h after birth.
METHODS: Of 1,230 women interested in birth center care and meeting low-risk medical criteria in early pregnancy, 617 were randomly allotted birth center care (EG) and 613 standard obstetric care (CG). Data were collected by questionnaires two months post partum, and hospital records.
RESULTS: EG women used less pharmacological pain relief than CG women, but no difference was observed concerning the retrospective attitude to pain, or among primiparas, to the intensity of pain experienced. EG multiparas experienced pain in labor as more intense, than did CG multiparas, probably because of a more negative prenatal attitude to labor pain. EG women experienced more support from the midwife, and a greater freedom in expressing their feelings during the birth than CG women. EG primiparas were more satisfied with their own achievement and felt more involved in the birth process than CG primiparas. No differences were observed between the groups regarding overall experience of childbirth, anxiety during the birth or support from husband.
CONCLUSION: Birth center care gave women interested in a natural childbirth, by avoiding pharmacological pain relief, greater opportunity to give birth according to their prenatal wishes, and it contributed to a slightly more positive birth experience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8079605     DOI: 10.3109/00016349409006271

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  7 in total

1.  Attitudes of Canadian women toward birthing centres and midwife care for childbirth.

Authors:  S W Wen; L S Mery; M S Kramer; V Jimenez; K Trouton; P Herbert; B Chalmers
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-09-21       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Promoting normality in childbirth.

Authors:  R Johanson; M Newburn
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-11-17

Review 3.  Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth.

Authors:  Ellen D Hodnett; Soo Downe; Denis Walsh
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-08-15

4.  Freestanding midwifery unit versus obstetric unit: a matched cohort study of outcomes in low-risk women.

Authors:  Charlotte Overgaard; Anna Margrethe Møller; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Lisbeth B Knudsen; Jane Sandall
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 5.  Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care.

Authors:  Andrew Symon; Jan Pringle; Helen Cheyne; Soo Downe; Vanora Hundley; Elaine Lee; Fiona Lynn; Alison McFadden; Jenny McNeill; Mary J Renfrew; Mary Ross-Davie; Edwin van Teijlingen; Heather Whitford; Fiona Alderdice
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 6.  Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

Authors:  Jane Sandall; Hora Soltani; Simon Gates; Andrew Shennan; Declan Devane
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-04-28

7.  Cross-cultural validation and psychometrics' evaluation of women's experience of maternity care scale in French: the ESEM.

Authors:  L Floris; C de Labrusse
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-07-11       Impact factor: 4.615

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.