Effect of foot reflexology on pain intensity and duration of labor on primiparous
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The integration of reflexology as one of the non-pharmacological pain relief methods in to midwifery care has become more common in recent years. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of reflexology on pain intensity and the duration of labor in primiparous.Materials and Methods: This clinical trial study was carried out on 80 primiparous women with low risk pregnancy that referring to Karaj hospitals (Iran) then randomized in two groups, intervention group which received reflexology for 40 minutes and control group. Severity of labor pain was shown by visual analogue scale (McGill questionnaire), before, half, one and two hours after intervention. Moreover, the duration of labor was determined for both groups.Results: Severity of labor pain before and immediately after intervention foot reflexology did not vary between case and control groups (p>0.05). But half, one and two hours after it, severity of labor pain in the intervention group was lower than the control group (P<0.001). Duration of labor in the intervention group significantly was lower than the control group (P<0.001).Conclusion: Reflexology can lead to decrease in labor pain as well as duration of labor. Therefore, we can use this non-invasive technique to decrease the labor pain and encourage mothers to normal vaginal delivery that is one of the aims of midwifery
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".