Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour

The role and outcomes of music listening for women in childbirth: An integrative review

AIM

To synthesise primary research on the role and use of music listening for women in childbirth.

DESIGN

Integrative review.

METHODS

Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) five-stage integrative review method was utilized to complete a systematic search of the literature. Studies were included if they were (a) peer-reviewed, (b) written in the English language, (c) published between 1 January 1979 and 5 April 2019 and (d) described the use of music listening during labour and birth. Studies were appraised for quality and methodological rigor using standardised assessment tools including the Critical Appraisal Skills Programmes (CASP) checklist for the qualitative studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for the quasi-experimental studies and randomised control trials. Data extrapolation, methodological quality assessment and Thematic Content Analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) were carried out.

FINDINGS

A total of 931 articles were retrieved and 24 papers were included in the review (12 randomized controlled trials, 9 quasi-experimental and 3 qualitative). The quality of the studies was moderately good overall. Two overarching themes emerged including 'outcomes of using music in childbirth' and, 'music application during childbirth'. Within 'outcomes of using music in childbirth' four subthemes are described: 'pain', 'anxiety', 'psychological supports' and 'progression of labour'. Within 'music application during childbirth' four themes are presented: 'timing of the music application', 'type of music', 'birth preparation using music' and 'mode of music listening'.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The findings indicate that music listening has a significant role to play for women in childbirth. This non-pharmacological intervention can reduce pain and anxiety while offering a multifaceted form of psychological support to alleviate stress and promote an increased sense of control in women during labour. However, further awareness is needed around the idiosyncratic nature of the music listening experience.

Relation between Length of Exposure to Epidural Analgesia during Labour and Birth Mode

Objective: To appraise the relationship between the length of exposure to epidural analgesia and the risk of non-spontaneous birth, and to identify additional risk factors. This study is framed within the MidconBirth project. Study design: A multicentre prospective study was conducted between July 2016 and November 2017 in three maternity hospitals in different Spanish regions. The independent variable of the study was the length of exposure to epidural analgesia, and the dependent variable was the type of birth in women with uncomplicated pregnancies. The data was analyzed separately by parity. A multivariate logistic regression was performed. The odds ratios (OR), using 95% confidence intervals (CI) were constructed. Main outcome measures: During the study period, 807 eligible women gave birth. Non-spontaneous births occurred in 29.37% of the sample, and 75.59% received oxytocin for augmentation of labour. The mean exposure length to epidural analgesia when non-spontaneous birth happened was 8.05 for primiparous and 6.32 for multiparous women (5.98 and 3.37 in spontaneous birth, respectively). A logistic regression showed the length of exposure to epidural during labour was the major predictor for non-spontaneous births in primiparous and multiparous women followed by use of oxytocin (multiparous group). Conclusions: The length of exposure to epidural analgesia during labour is associated with non-spontaneous births in our study. It highlights the need for practice change through the development of clinical guidelines, training programs for professionals and the continuity of midwifery care in order to support women to cope with labour pain using less invasive forms of analgesia. Women also need to be provided with evidence-based information.

Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies for Postoperative Opioid Abuse

Worldwide, 80% of patients who undergo surgery receive opioid analgesics as the fundamental agent for pain relief. However, the irrational use of opioids leads to excessive drug dependence and drug abuse, resulting in an increased mortality rate and huge economic loss. The crisis of opioid overuse remains a great challenge. In this review, we summarize several key factors in opioid abuse, including race, region, income, genetic factors, age and gender, smoking and alcohol abuse, history of chronic pain and analgesic drug abuse, surgery, neuropsychiatric illness, depression and antidepressant use, human factors, national policies, hospital regulations, and health insurance under treatment of pain. Furthermore, we present several prevention strategies, such as perioperative measures, opioid substitutes, treatment of the primary illness, emotional regulation, use of opioid antagonists, efforts of the state, hospitals, doctors and pharmacy benefit managers, gene therapy, and vaccines. Greater understanding and better assessment are required of the risks associated with opioid abuse to ensure the safety and analgesic effects of pain treatment after surgery.

Women's experiences of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief methods for labour and childbirth: a qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Many women use pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief during childbirth. Evidence from Cochrane reviews shows that effective pain relief is not always associated with high maternal satisfaction scores. However, understanding women's views is important for good quality maternity care provision. We undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis of women's views and experiences of pharmacological (epidural, opioid analgesia) and non-pharmacological (relaxation, massage techniques) pain relief options, to understand what affects women's decisions and choices and to inform guidelines, policy, and practice.

METHODS

We searched seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, AJOL), tracked citations and checked references. We used thematic and meta-ethnographic techniques for analysis purposes, and GRADE-CERQual tool to assess confidence in review findings. We developed review findings for each method. We then re-analysed the review findings thematically to highlight similarities and differences in women's accounts of different pain relief methods.

RESULTS

From 11,782 hits, we screened full 58 papers. Twenty-four studies provided findings for the synthesis: epidural (n = 12), opioids (n = 3), relaxation (n = 8) and massage (n = 4) - all conducted in upper-middle and high-income countries (HMICs). Re-analysis of the review findings produced five key themes. 'Desires for pain relief' illuminates different reasons for using pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief. 'Impact on pain' describes varying levels of effectiveness of the methods used. 'Influence and experience of support' highlights women's positive or negative experiences of support from professionals and/or birth companions. 'Influence on focus and capabilities' illustrates that all pain relief methods can facilitate maternal control, but some found non-pharmacological techniques less effective than anticipated, and others reported complications associated with medication use. Finally, 'impact on wellbeing and health' reports that whilst some women were satisfied with their pain relief method, medication was associated with negative self-reprisals, whereas women taught relaxation techniques often continued to use these methods with beneficial outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Women report mixed experiences of different pain relief methods. Pharmacological methods can reduce pain but have negative side-effects. Non-pharmacological methods may not reduce labour pain but can facilitate bonding with professionals and birth supporters. Women need information on risks and benefits of all available pain relief methods.

Nurses and midwives' experiences of using non-pharmacological interventions for labour pain management: a qualitative study in Ghana

BACKGROUND

Non-pharmacological interventions hold promise in reducing labour pain, with minimal or no harm to the mother, foetus and the progress of labour and are simple and cost-effective. Yet their use has not been adequately explored in clinical settings, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

This was a descriptive phenomenological study. Fifteen (15) nurses and midwives working in labour wards of two hospitals in Ghana were interviewed. Data analysis was guided by the principles of coding by Bailey and the constant comparative approach to generate themes. Ethics approval was obtained from the 37 Military Teaching Hospital Institutional Review Board in Ghana.

RESULTS

Three major themes were identified that described the experiences of nurses and midwives regarding their use of non-pharmacological interventions in managing labour pain. These were familiarity with non-pharmacological interventions, perceived benefits of non-pharmacological interventions, and barriers to the use of non-pharmacological interventions in the management of labour pain.

CONCLUSIONS

While some non-pharmacological pain management interventions were known and used by the nurses and midwives, they were not familiar with a good number of these interventions. Nurses and midwives perceived these interventions to be beneficial yet a number of barriers prevented easy utilisation.

The effectiveness of self-care and lifestyle interventions in primary dysmenorrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Menstrual pain is very common amongst young women. Despite the significant impact that menstrual pain has on academic attendance and performance, social activities and quality of life, most young women do not seek medical treatment but prefer to use self-care; commonly OTC analgesic medications and rest. Many women do not get significant pain relief from these methods, therefore other low cost, easy to learn self-care methods may be a valuable approach to management.

This review and meta-analysis examines the evidence for participant lead self-care techniques.

Methods

A search of Medline, PsychINFO, Google Scholar and CINAHL was carried out in September 2017.

Results

Twenty-three trials including 2302 women were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. Studies examined self-delivered acupressure, exercise and heat as interventions. Risk of bias was unclear for many domains. All interventions showed a reduction in menstrual pain symptoms; exercise (g = 2.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.35) showed the largest effect size, with heat (g = 0.73, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.40) and acupressure (g = 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.03) showing more moderate effect sizes. Exercise (g = 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.83) and heat (g = 0.48, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.87), were more effective than analgesics in reducing pain intensity, whereas acupressure was significantly less effective (g = − 0.76, 95% CI -1.37 to − 0.15).

Conclusion

Exercise showed large effects, while acupressure and heat showed moderate effects in reducing menstrual pain compared to no treatment. Both exercise and heat are potential alternatives to analgesic medication. However, difficulties in controlling for non-specific effects, along with potential for bias, may influence study findings.

Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Parenteral opioids (intramuscular and intravenous drugs including patient-controlled analgesia) are used for pain relief in labour in many countries throughout the world. This review is an update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability to women of different types, doses and modes of administration of parenteral opioid analgesia in labour. A second objective is to assess the effects of opioids in labour on the baby in terms of safety, condition at birth and early feeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (11 May 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining the use of intramuscular or intravenous opioids (including patient-controlled analgesia) for women in labour. Cluster-randomised trials were also eligible for inclusion, although none were identified. We did not include quasi-randomised trials. We looked at studies comparing an opioid with another opioid, placebo, no treatment, other non-pharmacological interventions (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)) or inhaled analgesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of each evidence synthesis using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 70 studies that compared an opioid with placebo or no treatment, another opioid administered intramuscularly or intravenously or compared with TENS applied to the back. Sixty-one studies involving more than 8000 women contributed data to the review and these studies reported on 34 different comparisons; for many comparisons and outcomes only one study contributed data. All of the studies were conducted in hospital settings, on healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 37 to 42 weeks' gestation. We excluded studies focusing on women with pre-eclampsia or pre-existing conditions or with a compromised fetus. Overall, the evidence was graded as low- or very low-quality regarding the analgesic effect of opioids and satisfaction with analgesia; evidence was downgraded because of study design limitations, and many of the studies were underpowered to detect differences between groups and so effect estimates were imprecise. Due to the large number of different comparisons, it was not possible to present GRADE findings for every comparison.For the comparison of intramuscular pethidine (50 mg/100 mg) versus placebo, no clear differences were found in maternal satisfaction with analgesia measured during labour (number of women satisfied or very satisfied after 30 minutes: 50 women; 1 trial; risk ratio (RR) 7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 128.87, very low-quality evidence), or number of women requesting an epidural (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; very low-quality evidence). Pain scores (reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) score of at least 40 mm: 50 women; 1 trial; RR 25, 95% CI 1.56 to 400, low-quality evidence) and pain measured in labour (women reporting pain relief to be "good" or "fair" within one hour of administration: 116 women; 1 trial; RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.47, low-quality evidence) were both reduced in the pethidine group, and fewer women requested any additional analgesia (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94, low-quality evidence).There was limited information on adverse effects and harm to women and babies. There were few results that clearly showed that one opioid was more effective than another. Overall, findings indicated that parenteral opioids provided some pain relief and moderate satisfaction with analgesia in labour. Opioid drugs were associated with maternal nausea, vomiting and drowsiness, although different opioid drugs were associated with different adverse effects. There was no clear evidence of adverse effects of opioids on the newborn. We did not have sufficient evidence to assess which opioid drug provided the best pain relief with the least adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Though most evidence is of low- or very-low quality, for healthy women with an uncomplicated pregnancy who are giving birth at 37 to 42 weeks, parenteral opioids appear to provide some relief from pain in labour but are associated with drowsiness, nausea, and vomiting in the woman. Effects on the newborn are unclear. Maternal satisfaction with opioid analgesia was largely unreported. The review needs to be examined alongside related Cochrane reviews. More research is needed to determine which analgesic intervention is most effective, and provides greatest satisfaction to women with acceptable adverse effects for mothers and their newborn.

Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I2 = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I2 = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I2 = 73%; Tau2 = 1.89; Chi2 = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.