• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

低风险初产妇水中浸泡缓解疼痛及产时转诊风险:出生地全国前瞻性队列研究的二次分析

Immersion in water for pain relief and the risk of intrapartum transfer among low risk nulliparous women: secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study.

作者信息

Lukasse Mirjam, Rowe Rachel, Townend John, Knight Marian, Hollowell Jennifer

机构信息

Department of Public Health and General Practice at the Faculty of Medicine, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Håkon Jarls gate 11, N-7489 Trondheim, Norway.

出版信息

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Feb 6;14:60. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-60.

DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-14-60
PMID:24499396
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3922427/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Immersion in water during labour is an important non-pharmacological method to manage labour pain, particularly in midwifery-led care settings where pharmacological methods are limited. This study investigates the association between immersion for pain relief and transfer before birth and other maternal outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of 16,577 low risk nulliparous women planning birth at home, in a freestanding midwifery unit (FMU) or in an alongside midwifery unit (AMU) in England between April 2008 and April 2010.

RESULTS

Immersion in water for pain relief was common; 50% in planned home births, 54% in FMUs and 38% in AMUs. Immersion in water was associated with a lower risk of transfer before birth for births planned at home (adjusted RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.99), in FMUs (adjusted RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.50-0.70) and in AMUs (adjusted RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.69-0.88). For births planned in FMUs, immersion in water was associated with a lower risk of intrapartum caesarean section (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.84) and a higher chance of a straightforward vaginal birth (RR 1.09; 95% CI 1.04-1.15). These beneficial effects were not seen in births planned at home or AMUs.

CONCLUSIONS

Immersion of water for pain relief was associated with a significant reduction in risk of transfer before birth for nulliparous women. Overall, immersion in water was associated with fewer interventions during labour. The effect varied across birth settings with least effect in planned home births and a larger effect observed for planned FMU births.

摘要

背景

分娩期间浸入水中是一种重要的非药物性缓解分娩疼痛的方法,尤其是在助产主导的护理环境中,药物性方法有限。本研究调查了为缓解疼痛而浸入水中与产前转院及其他产妇结局之间的关联。

方法

对2008年4月至2010年4月期间计划在英格兰家中、独立助产单元(FMU)或附属助产单元(AMU)分娩的16577名低风险初产妇进行了一项前瞻性队列研究。

结果

为缓解疼痛而浸入水中的情况很常见;计划在家中分娩的产妇中有50%,在FMU中有54%,在AMU中有38%。对于计划在家中分娩的产妇,浸入水中与产前转院风险较低相关(调整后RR为0.88;95%CI为0.79 - 0.99),在FMU中(调整后RR为0.59;95%CI为0.50 - 0.70)以及在AMU中(调整后RR为0.78;95%CI为0.69 - 0.88)。对于计划在FMU分娩的产妇,浸入水中与产时剖宫产风险较低相关(RR为0.61;95%CI为0.44 - 0.84)以及顺产机会较高相关(RR为1.09;95%CI为1.04 - 1.15)。在计划在家中或AMU分娩的产妇中未观察到这些有益效果。

结论

对于初产妇,为缓解疼痛而浸入水中与产前转院风险显著降低相关。总体而言,浸入水中与分娩期间较少的干预措施相关。这种效果在不同的分娩环境中有所不同,在计划在家中分娩时效果最小,而在计划在FMU分娩时观察到的效果更大。

相似文献

1
Immersion in water for pain relief and the risk of intrapartum transfer among low risk nulliparous women: secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study.低风险初产妇水中浸泡缓解疼痛及产时转诊风险:出生地全国前瞻性队列研究的二次分析
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Feb 6;14:60. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-60.
2
A comparison of intrapartum interventions and adverse outcomes by parity in planned freestanding midwifery unit and alongside midwifery unit births: secondary analysis of 'low risk' births in the birthplace in England cohort.计划性独立助产单元与附属助产单元分娩中按胎次比较产时干预措施及不良结局:对英格兰出生地队列中“低风险”分娩的二次分析
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Mar 21;17(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1271-2.
3
Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study.健康低风险孕妇的分娩地点与围产儿和产妇结局:英国Birthplace 前瞻性队列研究。
BMJ. 2011 Nov 23;343:d7400. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7400.
4
5
Duration and urgency of transfer in births planned at home and in freestanding midwifery units in England: secondary analysis of the birthplace national prospective cohort study.在英格兰,计划在家中和独立助产士单位分娩的转移时间和紧迫性:出生地全国前瞻性队列研究的二次分析。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Dec 5;13:224. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-224.
6
Transfers of women planning birth in midwifery units: data from the birthplace prospective cohort study.计划在助产士单位分娩的妇女的转移:来自birthplace 前瞻性队列研究的数据。
BJOG. 2012 Aug;119(9):1081-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03414.x. Epub 2012 Jun 18.
7
Perinatal and maternal outcomes in planned home and obstetric unit births in women at 'higher risk' of complications: secondary analysis of the Birthplace national prospective cohort study.并发症“高风险”女性在家计划分娩与在产科病房分娩的围产期及产妇结局:“出生地”全国前瞻性队列研究的二次分析
BJOG. 2015 Apr;122(5):741-53. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13283. Epub 2015 Jan 21.
8
Birth Outcomes for Planned Home and Licensed Freestanding Birth Center Births in Washington State.华盛顿州计划家庭分娩和持照独立分娩中心分娩的母婴结局。
Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Nov 1;138(5):693-702. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004578.
9
Systematic review and meta-analysis to examine intrapartum interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and waterbirth.系统回顾和荟萃分析,以检查分娩期间和水中分娩时浸入水中的产时干预措施以及母婴结局。
BMJ Open. 2022 Jul 5;12(7):e056517. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056517.
10
Are freestanding midwifery units a safe alternative to obstetric units for low-risk, primiparous childbirth? An analysis of effect differences by parity in a matched cohort study.对于低风险初产妇分娩,独立助产单元是产科单元的安全替代选择吗?一项匹配队列研究中按产次分析效应差异。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Jan 9;17(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-1208-1.

引用本文的文献

1
Therapeutic resources used by physiotherapists for the relief of labor pain: a cross-sectional study.物理治疗师用于缓解分娩疼痛的治疗资源:一项横断面研究。
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2025 Jan 23;46. doi: 10.61622/rbgo/2024rbgo99. eCollection 2024.
2
Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review.从组织和多专业角度理解与分娩池使用相关的障碍和促进因素:一项混合方法系统评价。
Reprod Health. 2023 Oct 4;20(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s12978-023-01690-0.
3
Potential Implications of Emerging Nontraditional Childbirth Practices On Neonatal Health.新兴非传统分娩方式对新生儿健康的潜在影响。
J Pediatr. 2023 Oct;261:113338. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2022.12.040. Epub 2023 Jan 30.
4
Project20: Does continuity of care and community-based antenatal care improve maternal and neonatal birth outcomes for women with social risk factors? A prospective, observational study.项目 20:连续护理和基于社区的产前护理是否能改善具有社会风险因素的妇女的母婴分娩结局?一项前瞻性、观察性研究。
PLoS One. 2021 May 4;16(5):e0250947. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250947. eCollection 2021.
5
Waterbirth: a national retrospective cohort study of factors associated with its use among women in England.水中分娩:一项全国性回顾性队列研究,探讨了英格兰妇女使用水中分娩的相关因素。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Mar 26;21(1):256. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03724-6.
6
Risk of complicated birth at term in nulliparous and multiparous women using routinely collected maternity data in England: cohort study.英国常规收集的产妇数据中初产妇和经产妇足月分娩并发症风险:队列研究。
BMJ. 2020 Oct 1;371:m3377. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3377.
7
Freestanding Midwife-Led Units: A Narrative Review.独立助产士主导单位:一项叙述性综述
Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2020 Apr 18;25(3):181-188. doi: 10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_209_19. eCollection 2020 May-Jun.
8
Getting into the water: a prospective observational study of water immersion for labour and birth at a New Zealand District Health Board.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 May 20;20(1):312. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03007-6.
9
Predictors of obstetric anal sphincter injury during waterbirth: a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study.预测水中分娩时产科肛门括约肌损伤的因素:一项前瞻性观察研究的二次分析。
Int Urogynecol J. 2020 Mar;31(3):651-656. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04167-6. Epub 2019 Dec 7.
10
Immersion in water during labour and birth.分娩过程中浸泡在水中。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 16;5(5):CD000111. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub4.

本文引用的文献

1
Immersion in water during labour and birth.分娩过程中浸泡在水中。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 16;5(5):CD000111. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub4.
2
Duration and urgency of transfer in births planned at home and in freestanding midwifery units in England: secondary analysis of the birthplace national prospective cohort study.在英格兰,计划在家中和独立助产士单位分娩的转移时间和紧迫性:出生地全国前瞻性队列研究的二次分析。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Dec 5;13:224. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-224.
3
Characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of women who used a birthing pool: a prospective observational study.使用分娩池的女性的特征、干预措施和结局:一项前瞻性观察研究。
Birth. 2012 Sep;39(3):192-202. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00548.x. Epub 2012 Jul 3.
4
Transfers of women planning birth in midwifery units: data from the birthplace prospective cohort study.计划在助产士单位分娩的妇女的转移:来自birthplace 前瞻性队列研究的数据。
BJOG. 2012 Aug;119(9):1081-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03414.x. Epub 2012 Jun 18.
5
Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study.健康低风险孕妇的分娩地点与围产儿和产妇结局:英国Birthplace 前瞻性队列研究。
BMJ. 2011 Nov 23;343:d7400. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7400.
6
The effects of hydrotherapy on anxiety, pain, neuroendocrine responses, and contraction dynamics during labor.水疗对分娩时焦虑、疼痛、神经内分泌反应和收缩动力学的影响。
Biol Res Nurs. 2010 Jul;12(1):28-36. doi: 10.1177/1099800410361535. Epub 2010 May 7.
7
Have women become more willing to accept obstetric interventions and does this relate to mode of birth? Data from a prospective study.女性是否更愿意接受产科干预措施,这与分娩方式有关吗?一项前瞻性研究的数据。
Birth. 2007 Mar;34(1):6-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00140.x.
8
Waterbirths compared with landbirths: an observational study of nine years.水中分娩与陆地分娩的比较:一项为期九年的观察性研究。
J Perinat Med. 2004;32(4):308-14. doi: 10.1515/JPM.2004.057.
9
Women's experience of waterbirth.女性水中分娩的体验。
Pract Midwife. 2003 Mar;6(3):26-31.
10
Warm tub bathing during labor: maternal and neonatal effects.分娩期间温水盆浴:对母婴的影响
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001 Apr;80(4):311-4. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.080004311.x.