Reviewing the effect of reflexology on the pain and certain features and outcomes of the labor on the primiparous women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reflexology is one of the non-pharmacological pain relief methods, and since it is a non-invasive, inexpensive and applicable technique, it can be used by a skilled and trained midwife. This study aimed to review the effect of reflexology on the pain and outcomes of the labor. METHODS: In this quasi-experimental study, 88 primiparous mothers referred to selected hospitals of Isfahan for vaginal delivery were selected using simple random sampling method and then randomized in two groups. Data collection tools were the demographic data questionnaire, profile and outcomes of the labor and the short-form of the McGill Questionnaire for Pain Rating Index (PRI) assessment. The intervention was general and specific reflexology in the active phase of labor. PRI was assessed before the intervention and four times after the intervention (3-5 cm, 6-8 cm and 9-10 cm dilatations and second stage of labor. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between groups before intervention. In the reflexology group, there was a significant difference between the PRI before and after the 4 stages intervention (p < 0.001). PRI was different significantly between studied groups after intervention (p < 0.001). The length of active phase of labor was different significantly between the two groups; but this difference was not significant during the second (p = 0.29), and the third (p = 0.27) stages. The difference between the 1(st) minute and the 5(th) minute Apgar score (p < 0.001) and rate of hemorrhage between the two groups were different significantly (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Reflexology can lead to decrease in the labor pain. Therefore, regarding to the safety of this technique, it can be replaced as an alternative for pharmacological methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".