Massage Therapy and Labor Outcomes: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Massage is a time-honored method by which women have received comfort throughout the millennia, yet it has not been rigorously evaluated in the modern day delivery suite. No study to date that we are aware of has evaluated the effect of massage therapy by a regulated massage therapist on labor pain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of massage therapy provided by registered massage therapists in managing pain among women in active labor. METHODS: BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver, BC. RESEARCH DESIGN: a randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: 77 healthy nulliparous women presenting in spontaneous labor. INTERVENTION: Swedish massage administered for up to five hours by a registered massage therapist during labor vs. standard care. Main outcome measures include: cervical dilation at the time of administration of epidural, compared using estimated marginal means in an analysis of covariance. We also compared perception of pain at three time periods during labor according to cervical dilation at 3-4 cm, 5-7 cm, and 8-10 cm using the McGill Present Pain Intensity Scale. RESULTS: The mean cervical dilation at the time of epidural insertion after adjustment for station of the presenting part, cervical dilation, and status of membranes on admission to hospital was 5.9 cm (95% CI 5.2-6.7) compared to 4.9 in the control group (95% CI 4.2-5.8). Scores on the McGill Pain Scale were consistently lower in the massage therapy group (13.3 vs. 16.9 at 3-4 cm, 13.3 vs. 15.8 at 5-6 cm, and 19.4 vs. 28.3 at 7-8 cm), although these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings from this pilot study suggest that massage therapy by a registered massage therapist has the potential to be an effective means of pain management that may be associated with delayed use of epidural analgesia. It may therefore have the potential to reduce exposure to epidural analgesia during labor and decrease rates of associated sequelae.
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 | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".