Keywords
pregnant women
laboring women
parity
Abstract
Introduction. The aim of the study was to analyze the awareness of pregnant women with different parity, about non-medication and medication methods of anesthesia, as well as to determine their attitude to different types of anesthesia in labor.
Materials and methods. А prospective non-interventional study was carried out with 50 women as subjects: Group I (n = 25, mean age — 27.3; mean gestational age — 31.6) — patients who were about to give birth for the first time; Group II (n = 25, mean age — 34.5; mean gestational age — 32.7) — women who had a history of one or more births.
Results and discussion. 28.0 % of first-partum and 32.0 % of repeat-partum women believed that all methods of anesthesia were safe, and 20.0 % of first-partum and 12.0 % of repeat-partum women believed that there was a risk of complications. 52.0 % of patients in group one and 56.0 % in group two found it difficult to answer this question. In the group of first-pregnant women, the most popular and effective non-pharmacological methods of labor pain relief were special breathing techniques (92.0 %), gymnastics and the use of a fitness ball (68.0 %), and emotional support from a spouse (midwife, partner) (64.0 %), while in the group of repeat births the most popular and effective methods were special breathing techniques in labor (95.5 %), gymnastics (50.0 %) and self-massage of special areas (40.9 %). Both first-time (83.3 %) and repeat (61.9 %) women gave their preference to epidural anesthesia as medication methods of anesthesia. In the group of laboring women, only 30.0 % of women practiced medical anesthesia methods. More than half (76.0 % of first-time and 56.0 % of repeat births) of the surveyed women confided the question of anesthesia in labor to their obstetrician-gynecologist. It can be assumed that a higher percentage of repeat mothers than first mothers believed that all anesthesia methods were safe, because they had already used anesthesia methods in previous births and there were no negative consequences. Pregnant women in groups 1 and 2 (52.0 % and 56.0 % respectively) found it difficult to answer the question about the safety of labor anesthesia due to low awareness of the topic and lack of proper preparation for the upcoming delivery. Women from the first group (83.3 %) preferred epidural anesthesia as a method of medical anesthesia more than women from the second group (61.9 %). This may be due to the presumed intense pain sensations in firsttime mothers compared to women who have already undergone natural childbirth.
Conclusions. Low awareness of the issue of labor pain relief was observed among both first-time and repeat births. This shows that there is a need to inform pregnant women, to hold talks on this topic, to create and popularize Schools for pregnant women and expectant mothers.
For citation
Prokhorova OV, Prosvetova EM, Lekareva EI, Ananyeva TD. Anesthesia of childbirth in women with different parities. USMU Medical Bulletin. 2024;(2):19–30. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/SCPRYZ.
References
Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Options for Pain Relief During Labor:
An Expert Review / S. Zuarez-Easton, O. Erez, N. Zafran [et al.] // American Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2023. Vol. 228, Iss. 5, Suppl. P. S1246–S1259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.03.003.
Markley J. C., Rollins M. D. Non-Neuraxial Labor Analgesia: Options // Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017. Vol. 60, Iss. 2. P. 350–364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0000000000000277.
Pain Relief in Labour: A Qualitative Study to Determine How to Support Women to Make Decisions About Pain Relief in Labour / J. E. Lally, R. G. Thomson, S. MacPhail, C. Exley // BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2014. Vol. 14, Art. No. 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-6.
Sensory Processing Sensitivity and Social Pain: A Hypothesis and Theory / L. Morellini, A. Izzo, A. Celeghin [et al.] // Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2023. Vol. 17, Art. No. 1135440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1135440.
Practice of Labour Pain Management Methods and Associated Factors Among Skilled Attendants Working at General Hospitals in Tigray Region, North Ethiopia: Hospital Based Cross-Sectional Study Design / E. Sahile, Y. Yemaneh, A. Alehegn [et al.] // Health Science Journal. 2017. Vol. 11, No. 4, Art. No. 516. URL: https://clck.ru/3A797y (date of access: 11.05.2024).
Non-pharmacological Interventions of Pain Management Used During Labour; An Exploratory Descriptive Qualitative Study of Puerperal Women in Adidome Government Hospital of the Volta Region, Ghana / K. D. Konlan, A. Afaya, E. Mensah [et al.] // Reproductive Health. 2021. Vol. 18, Art. No. 86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-021-01141-8.
Effectiveness of Breathing Exercises, Foot Reflexology and Back Massage (BRM) on Labour Pain, Anxiety, Duration, Satisfaction, Stress Hormones and Newborn Outcomes Among Primigravidae During the First Stage of Labour in Saudi Arabia: A Study Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial / K. J. Baljon, M. H. Romli, A. H. Ismail [et al.] // BMJ Open. 2020. Vol. 10, Art. No. 033844. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen‑2019-033844.
Elgzar W. T., Alshahrani M. S., Ibrahim H. A. Non-pharmacological Labor Pain Relive Methods: Utilization and Associated Factors Among Midwives and Maternity Nurses in Najran, Saudi Arabia // Reproductive Health. 2024. Vol. 21, Art. No. 11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-023-01737-2.
Gibson E. Women’s Expectations and Experiences with Labour Pain in Medical and Midwifery Models of Birth in the United States // Women and Birth. 2014. Vol. 27, Iss. 3. P. 185–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2014.05.002.
Massage, Reflexology and Other Manual Methods for Pain Management in Labour / C. A. Smith, K. M. Levett, C. T. Collins, L. Jones // Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012. Iss. 2, Art. No. CD009290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009290.pub2.
Evidence and Recommendations // WHO recommendations: Intrapartum Care for a Positive Childbirth Experience. Geneva : World Health Organization, 2018. URL: https://clck.ru/3Ak6B2 (date of access: 11.05.2024).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
Copyright © 2024 Prokhorova O. V., Prosvetova E. M., Lekareva E. I., Ananyeva T. D.