自由分娩中心的引产和催产方法:一项横断面研究。

Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P Pub Date : 2024-01-19 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2023-0158en
Gisele Almeida Lopes, Thais Trevisan Teixeira, Nathalie Leister, Maria Luiza Riesco
{"title":"自由分娩中心的引产和催产方法:一项横断面研究。","authors":"Gisele Almeida Lopes, Thais Trevisan Teixeira, Nathalie Leister, Maria Luiza Riesco","doi":"10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2023-0158en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe and analyze the use of methods of induction and augmentation of labor in a freestanding birth center (FBC).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Cross-sectional study carried out at a FBC located in São Paulo (SP), with all women booked from 2011 to 2021 (n = 3,397).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of women (61.3%) did not receive any method. The methods were used alone or in combination (traditional Chinese medicine, massage, castor oil, stimulating tea, amniotomy, and oxytocin). Traditional Chinese medicine (acupuncture, acupressure, and moxa) was the most used method (14.7%) and oxytocin was the least frequent (5.1%). The longer the water breaking time, the greater the number of methods used (p < 0.001). Amniotomy was associated with maternal transfers (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Induction and augmentation of labor were strictly adopted. The use of natural or non-pharmacological methods prevailed. Robust clinical studies are needed to prove the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods of stimulation of childbirth, in addition to strategies for their implementation in other childbirth care services, to really prove the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods in the parturition process, that is, in labor and birth.</p>","PeriodicalId":94195,"journal":{"name":"Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P","volume":"57 ","pages":"e20230158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10849464/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods of induction and augmentation of labor in a freestanding birth center: a cross-sectional study.\",\"authors\":\"Gisele Almeida Lopes, Thais Trevisan Teixeira, Nathalie Leister, Maria Luiza Riesco\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2023-0158en\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe and analyze the use of methods of induction and augmentation of labor in a freestanding birth center (FBC).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Cross-sectional study carried out at a FBC located in São Paulo (SP), with all women booked from 2011 to 2021 (n = 3,397).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of women (61.3%) did not receive any method. The methods were used alone or in combination (traditional Chinese medicine, massage, castor oil, stimulating tea, amniotomy, and oxytocin). Traditional Chinese medicine (acupuncture, acupressure, and moxa) was the most used method (14.7%) and oxytocin was the least frequent (5.1%). The longer the water breaking time, the greater the number of methods used (p < 0.001). Amniotomy was associated with maternal transfers (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Induction and augmentation of labor were strictly adopted. The use of natural or non-pharmacological methods prevailed. Robust clinical studies are needed to prove the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods of stimulation of childbirth, in addition to strategies for their implementation in other childbirth care services, to really prove the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods in the parturition process, that is, in labor and birth.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P\",\"volume\":\"57 \",\"pages\":\"e20230158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10849464/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2023-0158en\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2023-0158en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的描述并分析自由分娩中心(FBC)使用引产和催产方法的情况:在圣保罗(SP)的一家自由分娩中心开展横断面研究,研究对象为2011年至2021年期间预约的所有产妇(n = 3,397):结果:大多数妇女(61.3%)没有接受任何避孕方法。这些方法有单独使用的,也有联合使用的(中药、按摩、蓖麻油、催产茶、羊膜切开术和催产素)。使用最多的方法是中药(针灸、穴位按摩和艾灸)(14.7%),使用最少的是催产素(5.1%)。破水时间越长,使用的方法越多(p < 0.001)。羊膜腔切开术与产妇转院有关(P < 0.001):结论:严格采用引产和催产。结论:引产和催产被严格采用,自然或非药物方法的使用占主导地位。除了在其他分娩护理服务中实施非药物催产方法的策略外,还需要进行大量的临床研究来证明非药物催产方法的有效性,以真正证明非药物催产方法在分娩过程(即分娩和生产)中的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methods of induction and augmentation of labor in a freestanding birth center: a cross-sectional study.

Objective: To describe and analyze the use of methods of induction and augmentation of labor in a freestanding birth center (FBC).

Method: Cross-sectional study carried out at a FBC located in São Paulo (SP), with all women booked from 2011 to 2021 (n = 3,397).

Results: The majority of women (61.3%) did not receive any method. The methods were used alone or in combination (traditional Chinese medicine, massage, castor oil, stimulating tea, amniotomy, and oxytocin). Traditional Chinese medicine (acupuncture, acupressure, and moxa) was the most used method (14.7%) and oxytocin was the least frequent (5.1%). The longer the water breaking time, the greater the number of methods used (p < 0.001). Amniotomy was associated with maternal transfers (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Induction and augmentation of labor were strictly adopted. The use of natural or non-pharmacological methods prevailed. Robust clinical studies are needed to prove the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods of stimulation of childbirth, in addition to strategies for their implementation in other childbirth care services, to really prove the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods in the parturition process, that is, in labor and birth.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信