ArticleAJOG global reports2025
Practice of pharmacological labor pain management and associated factors among healthcare providers in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Labor Pain Management Practices and Associated Factors Among Licensed Obstetric Care Providers in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Implementation of Evidence-Based Intrapartum Care and its Associated Factors Among Obstetric Care Providers Working in South Ethiopia.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Achieving positive obstetric health outcomes is a global priority, and the implementation of pharmacological and evidence-based interventions for pain relief during labor is strongly recommended. However, there is a notable scarcity of systematic review evidence concerning the practice of pharmacological labor pain management services. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the pooled practices of pharmacological labor pain management and the associated factors among healthcare providers in Ethiopia. Methods: Studies systematically searched electronic databases including Scopus, Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, African Journal Online, the Wiley Online Library, and National Digital Library repositories from April 1, 2024, to April 30, 2024. Data extracted from Microsoft Excel were imported into STATA version 11 for further analysis. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale employed for cross-sectional studies used for quality assessment. A random-effects model was used to estimates pooled prevalence. Cochran's Results: The pooled practice of pharmacological labor pain management services among healthcare providers was found to be 43.83% (95% CI: 37.45-50.20). Caregivers with sufficient knowledge (AOR: 2.36; 95% CI: 1.99-2.81), those who held positive attitudes (AOR: 3.66; 95% CI: 3.13-4.31), caregivers who received training related to obstetric protocols (AOR: 3.42; 95% CI: 2.36-4.97), laboring mothers expressed a preference for such interventions (AOR=2.33; 95% CI: 1.50, 3.63) were associated with practicing pharmacological labor pain management. Conclusion: The overall pooled practice of pharmacological labor pain management among healthcare providers was found to be inadequate. Key factors such as obstetric care-related training, knowledge, attitudes, and the availability of options for labor pain management were strongly associated with this outcome. Therefore, it is crucial to provide training on labor pain management techniques to enhance healthcare providers' knowledge and attitudes toward these interventions across all levels of the healthcare system. Moreover, recommend that all healthcare providers offer pain relief in a manner that aligns with the preferences of laboring women, ensuring that care is both responsive and respectful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.