Effect of Foot Reflexology on Reduction of Labour Pain Among Primigravida Mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reflexology may help induce labour and reduce pain during childbirth. Fear of pain associated with childbirth leads to increase in the irregular use of cesarean method. PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate the effect of reflexology on relieving labour pain and assess the recipient's opinion regarding foot reflexology. SETTING: The study taken place in the labour room, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kerala, South India. PARTICIPANTS: 50 primigravida patients experiencing labour. RESEARCH DESIGN: A quasi-experimental study design was used. Subjects were selected by convenience sampling technique with the first 25 patients allocated to the experimental group and the successive 25 primigravida mothers to a time-control group, to avoid data contamination. INTERVENTION: Intervention consisted of foot reflexology applied by a trained therapist to five pressure points of both feet that correspond to the uterus. Total intervention time lasted 20 minutes. Control group rested quietly for 20 minutes to serve as a time control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain associated with labour was recorded on a visual analogue scale immediately prior to intervention, and at 20- and 40-minutes postintervention. Patient satisfaction with reflexology treatment was recorded. RESULTS: < .001, 95%CI 0.643-1.677) time points. Eighty-one per cent of patients would recommend reflexology during labour. CONCLUSION: The findings showed that foot reflexology was effective in relief of labour pain, with a high degree of patient satisfaction in primigravida 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".