MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3047223177 · doi:10.29252/jhc.22.1.44

Comparison of the Effect of Three methods of Massage, Hot Compress and Normal Perineal Care on Perceived Stress and the Severity of Labor Pain in First-Born Mothers

2020· article· en· W3047223177 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M Majidnia, Ahmad Nooreddini, Leila Jouybari, P Yazarlou, Zahra Talebi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health and Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMassageMedicinePhysical therapyChildbirthPopulationLabor painAnalysis of variancePregnancyAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background & aim: Natural childbirth is a painful experience that can be treated with nonpharmacological methods to reduce the pain and stress.The aim of this study was to compare the effect of massage, hot compress and normal perineal care methods on perceived stress and the severity of labor pain in first-born mothers.Methods: The present study was a quasi-experimental study.The research population consisted of first-born pregnant women in Gonbad-e Kavous.A total of 150 samples were included in the study, which were randomly assigned to one of three groups of massage therapy, hot perineal compression, and routine perineal care.Perceived stress and McGill pain questionnaires were used to collect data.Data analysis was performed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods including independent t-test, chi-square and repeated meassure, using SPSS software version 16.Results: The mean stress scores were 23.78±3.4 in massage therapy group, 23.66±1.7 in hot compress group and 25.3±2.04 in normal care group.Statistically, there was a significant difference between the perceived stress scores of massage therapy (p=0.009) and hot compression groups (p=0.001) at different times, but in normal care group (p=0.162)this difference was not significant.In terms of pain intensity, the mean scores after 20 minutes intervention was 5.29 in massage group, 5.45 in hot compression group and 7.15 in normal care group (from a totall score of 10).Statistically, the mean scores of pain intensity before and after the intervention in the massage therapy (p=0.001) and warm compression (p=0.013)groups were significantly different.Conclusion: Based on the results, hot compress method was more effective in reducing stress and massage therapy was more effective in relieving pain than other two methods.Therefore, these methods can be used as safe and secure ways to control the pain and stress of first-born mothers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health and Care→Same topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum→French-language works237,207→