Upright versus recumbent position during first stage of labor among primipara women on labor outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of upright versus recumbent position during the active phase of first stage of labor among primipara women on labor outcomes in term of progress, duration of labor, method of delivery, neonatal outcome and maternal satisfaction with assumed position.Methods: Quasi experimental design was used. The study was conducted in the labor unit in obstetric department at Benha University Hospital. A purposive sample of 100 parturient women in 1st stage of labor were recruited in the study, they divided into two groups; upright group (50) and recumbent group (50). Data were collected through four main tools: Structured Interviewing questionnaire sheet, Structured Observational Checklist include (Partograph and Apgar score), Visual analogue pain intensity scale and maternal satisfaction with assumed position questionnaire.Results: It revealed that high statistical significant difference between the upright and recumbent groups in term of decreases interval and increases duration, frequency and intensity of uterine contraction, cervical dilatation and fetal head descent/fifth among the upright group. While the recumbent group showed less progress. Moreover, the recumbent group expressed more pain score, consume longer duration of 1st, 2nd, 3rd stage of labor than the upright group and statistical significant difference in Apgar score of the neonate during both first and fifth minute. In addition, the upright group had higher satisfaction scores compared to those assumed recumbent positions (p < .001).Conclusions: Upright position had positive effect on progress of labor, decreased duration of the three stages of labor, better neonatal outcomes and improving parturient women's satisfaction with assumed position. The study recommended that all parturient women in low-risk labor should be informed about the benefits of assuming upright positions during first stage of labor, and be encouraged and supported to use them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".