Efficacy of an Ergonomic Ankle Support Aid for Squatting Position in Improving Pushing Skills and Birth Outcomes During the Second Stage of Labor: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The physical positions that are adopted by women during childbirth significantly impact their childbirth outcomes and experiences. Literature studies have associated using a squatting position with reduced childbirth pain and increased comfort and pushing efficiency. However, the major disadvantage of the squatting position is that women may lack the muscular fitness and stamina necessary to sustain this position for a long period. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the pushing experiences and birth outcomes of three different pushing positions during the second stage of labor. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted at a regional teaching hospital in northern Taiwan. Data were collected from 168 primiparous women during the 38th to 42nd gestational weeks. None of the participants received epidural analgesia during labor, and all were free of pregnancy and labor-related complications. During labor, after full cervical dilation and when the fetal head had descended to at least the +1 station and had turned to the occiput anterior position, the experimental group was asked to push in the squatting position while using the ergonomically designed ankle support. For purposes of comparison, Comparison Group A was asked to push in the squatting position without the use of the support, and Comparison Group B was asked to push in a standard semirecumbent position. All of the participants completed a demographic and obstetrics data sheet, the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and the Labor Pushing Experience scale within 4 hours postpartum. RESULTS: In terms of delivery time, the duration between the start of pushing to crowning for the experimental group (squatting with ankle supports) averaged 25.79 minutes less (F = 6.02, p < .05) than the time for Comparison Group B (semirecumbent). The duration between the start of pushing to infant birth averaged 25.21 minutes less for the experimental group than for Comparison Group B (F = 6.14, p < .05). Moreover, the experimental group had a lower average visual analog scale pain score (5.05 ± 3.22) than Comparison Group B (F = 42.67, p < .001), and the average McGill pain score for the experimental group was lower than both comparison groups (F = 18.12, p < .001). The participants in the group that delivered from a squatting position with ankle support had better labor pushing experiences than the comparison groups (F = 14.69, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In comparison with both unsupported squatting and semirecumbent pushing, squatting with the aid of ergonomically designed ankle supports reduced pushing times, ameliorated labor pain, and improved the pushing experience. Thus, this intervention may reduce the caring needs of women during the second stage of labor. This intervention may be introduced in midwifery education programs and in clinical practice as a method to improve the care of women during the second stage of labor.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».