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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".