Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35794877›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of midwifery2022

The barriers to offering non-pharmacological pain management as an initial option for laboring women: A review of the literature.

Matilda A Ingram, Susannah Brady, Ann S Peacock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of midwifery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Matilda A IngramSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Susannah BradySchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Ann S PeacockSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany women use pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain management (NPPM) during childbirth, however, evidence shows the usage rates of pharmacological pain management are increasing. The shift towards a biomedical approach to birth care opposes the enduring midwifery philosophy of trusting the woman and her body. Identifying midwives' beliefs and attitudes towards perceived and actual barriers to offering NPPM as an initial option will provide insight into the factors that affect this.

methodsThis review of the literature sought to understand midwives' beliefs and attitudes towards the barriers to offering NPPM as an initial option for laboring women. Peer-reviewed journals were searched for primary research that met the inclusion criteria and explored midwives' beliefs and attitudes towards the barriers to offering NPPM as an initial option for laboring women. Included studies were evaluated for quality according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists.

resultsThirteen qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria and four main themes of barriers to midwives offering NPPM emerged: health system-related, health facility-related, health practitioner-related, and health consumer-related barriers.

conclusionsThe review of the literature highlighted there are barriers that prevent or delay the initial utilization of non-pharmacological methods of pain management in labor by midwives. These findings can be used as a platform to inform further research into this topic.

Indexed as

laborlabor painmidwiferyobstetricpain managementpregnancy

Identifiers

PMID35794877
PMCPMC9186088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.