3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Utilidad de las terapias complementarias en el manejo de dolor durante el parto: una revisión integradora Translated title: The usefulness of complementary therapies in pain management during childbirth: an integrative review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          RESUMEN: Introducción: El dolor de parto es uno de los aspectos que más preocupan a las futuras madres. La enfermería vela por el bienestar de las pacientes en todas sus vertientes y cabe tener presente que existen diversas opciones complementarias a la analgesia epidural. Objetivo Identificar las terapias complementarias que puedan aplicarse de forma efectiva y segura en embarazadas, analizar los factores que contribuyan a un mayor bienestar para la parturienta y evaluar su utilidad. Método: Revisión integradora de la literatura realizada mediante la búsqueda en las bases de datos online: PubMed, Scopus y Dialnet. Se incluyeron artículos cuya fecha de publicación no fuese superior a los 10 años previos a la búsqueda, redactados en inglés, español o portugués y de acceso abierto. Resultados: Se analizaron un total de 16 artículos cuya temática giraba en torno a la aplicación de diferentes terapias complementarias utilizadas con seguridad en mujeres embarazadas. Se tuvieron en cuenta los resultados de la aplicación de diferentes técnicas complementarias en estudios previos y se agruparon según tipología: intervenciones cuerpo-mente, práctica médica alternativa, métodos de curación manual, inmersión en agua y pelota suiza, aromaterapia y auriculoterapia y estimulación nerviosa eléctrica transcutánea. Conclusión: Se evidencia la variedad de terapias complementarias cuya aplicación resulta efectiva y segura en el momento del parto, así como su utilidad para disminuir los inconvenientes presentes durante esta etapa, acrecentando así, la experiencia positiva del parto.

          Translated abstract

          ABSTRACT: Introduction: Labor pain is one of the most worrying things for future mothers. Nurses ensure the well-being of patients in all these aspects and it should be noted that there are various complementary options to epidural analgesia. Objective: To identify the complementary therapies that could be applied effectively and safely in pregnant women, to analyse the contributing factors of greater well-being for the parturient and to evaluate their utility. Method: This integrative review was carried out in online databases: PubMed, Scopus and Dialnet. Articles whose publication date was not more than ten years ago, written in English, Spanish or Portuguese and open access were included. Results: 16 studies about the application of different complementary therapies used safely in pregnant were included and analysed. The obtained results of the application of complementary techniques in previous studies were considered and grouped according to typology: body-mind interventions, alternative medical practice, manual healing methods, immersion in water and swiss ball, aromatherapy and auriculotherapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Conclusion: The variety of effective and safe complementary therapies on labour is evidenced, as well as their usefulness to reduce the possible inconveniences that may appear during this process, increasing the positive experience of labour.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews.

          The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly.  Most women in labour require pain relief. Pain management strategies include non-pharmacological interventions (that aim to help women cope with pain in labour) and pharmacological interventions (that aim to relieve the pain of labour). To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage pain in labour. We considered findings from non-Cochrane systematic reviews if there was no relevant Cochrane review. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), The Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to 31 May 2011) to identify all relevant systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of pain management in labour. Each of the contributing Cochrane reviews (nine new, six updated) followed a generic protocol with 13 common primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Each Cochrane review included comparisons with placebo, standard care or with a different intervention according to a predefined hierarchy of interventions. Two review authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality, and data were checked by a third author. This overview is a narrative summary of the results obtained from individual reviews. We identified 15 Cochrane reviews (255 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. For all interventions, with available data, results are presented as comparisons of: 1. Intervention versus placebo or standard care; 2. Different forms of the same intervention (e.g. one opioid versus another opioid); 3. One type of intervention versus a different type of intervention (e.g. TENS versus opioid). Not all reviews included results for all comparisons. Most reviews compared the intervention with placebo or standard care, but with the exception of opioids and epidural analgesia, there were few direct comparisons between different forms of the same intervention, and even fewer comparisons between different interventions. Based on these three comparisons, we have categorised interventions into: " What works" ,"What may work", and "Insufficient evidence to make a judgement".WHAT WORKSEvidence suggests that epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled analgesia effectively manage pain in labour, but may give rise to adverse effects. Epidural, and inhaled analgesia effectively relieve pain when compared with placebo or a different type of intervention (epidural versus opioids). Combined-spinal epidurals relieve pain more quickly than traditional or low dose epidurals. Women receiving inhaled analgesia were more likely to experience vomiting, nausea and dizziness.When compared with placebo or opioids, women receiving epidural analgesia had more instrumental vaginal births and caesarean sections for fetal distress, although there was no difference in the rates of caesarean section overall. Women receiving epidural analgesia were more likely to experience hypotension, motor blockade, fever or urinary retention. Less urinary retention was observed in women receiving CSE than in women receiving traditional epidurals. More women receiving CSE than low-dose epidural experienced pruritus.  WHAT MAY WORKThere is some evidence to suggest that immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture, massage and local anaesthetic nerve blocks or non-opioid drugs may improve management of labour pain, with few adverse effects.  Evidence was mainly limited to single trials. These interventions relieved pain and improved satisfaction with pain relief (immersion, relaxation, acupuncture, local anaesthetic nerve blocks, non-opioids) and childbirth experience (immersion, relaxation, non-opioids) when compared with placebo or standard care. Relaxation was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and acupuncture was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and caesarean sections.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make judgements on whether or not hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy, TENS, or parenteral opioids are more effective than placebo or other interventions for pain management in labour. In comparison with other opioids more women receiving pethidine experienced adverse effects including drowsiness and nausea.  Most methods of non-pharmacological pain management are non-invasive and appear to be safe for mother and baby, however, their efficacy is unclear, due to limited high quality evidence. In many reviews, only one or two trials provided outcome data for analysis and the overall methodological quality of the trials was low. High quality trials are needed.There is more evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological methods, but these have more adverse effects. Thus, epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief but at the cost of increased instrumental vaginal birth.It remains important to tailor methods used to each woman's wishes, needs and circumstances, such as anticipated duration of labour, the infant's condition, and any augmentation or induction of labour.A major challenge in compiling this overview, and the individual systematic reviews on which it is based, has been the variation in use of different process and outcome measures in different trials, particularly assessment of pain and its relief, and effects on the neonate after birth. This made it difficult to pool results from otherwise similar studies, and to derive conclusions from the totality of evidence. Other important outcomes have simply not been assessed in trials; thus, despite concerns for 30 years or more about the effects of maternal opioid administration during labour on subsequent neonatal behaviour and its influence on breastfeeding, only two out of 57 trials of opioids reported breastfeeding as an outcome. We therefore strongly recommend that the outcome measures, agreed through wide consultation for this project, are used in all future trials of methods of pain management.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour

              Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute to the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence on the use of relaxation therapies for pain management in labour. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. To examine the effects of mind‐body relaxation techniques for pain management in labour on maternal and neonatal well‐being during and after labour. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) ( The Cochrane Library , Issue 5 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to 24 May 2017), CINAHL (1980 to 24 May 2017), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (18 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (18 May 2017), the ISRCTN Register (18 May 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( ICTRP ) (18 May 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (including quasi randomised and cluster trials) comparing relaxation methods with standard care, no treatment, other non‐pharmacological forms of pain management in labour or placebo. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We attempted to contact study authors for additional information. We assessed evidence quality with GRADE methodology. This review update includes 19 studies (2519 women), 15 of which (1731 women) contribute data. Interventions examined included relaxation, yoga, music and mindfulness. Approximately half of the studies had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and attrition bias. The majority of studies had a high risk of bias for performance and detection bias, and unclear risk of bias for, allocation concealment, reporting bias and other bias. We assessed the evidence from these studies as ranging from low to very low quality, and therefore the effects below should be interpreted with caution. Relaxation We found that relaxation compared to usual care provided lowered the intensity of pain (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) during the latent phase of labour (mean difference (MD) ‐1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐1.97 to ‐0.53, one trial, 40 women). Four trials reported pain intensity in the active phase; there was high heterogeneity between trials and very low‐quality evidence suggested that there was no strong evidence that the effects were any different between groups for this outcome (MD ‐1.08, 95% CI ‐2.57 to 0.41, four trials, 271 women, random‐effects analysis). Very low‐quality evidence showed that women receiving relaxation reported greater satisfaction with pain relief during labour (risk ratio (RR) 8.00, 95% CI 1.10 to 58.19, one trial, 40 women), and showed no clear benefit for satisfaction with childbirth experience (assessed using different scales) (standard mean difference (SMD) ‐0.03, 95% CI ‐0.37 to 0.31, three trials, 1176 women). For safety outcomes there was very low‐quality evidence of no clear reduction in assisted vaginal birth (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.84, four trials, 1122 women) or in caesarean section rates (average RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.01, four trials, 1122 women). Sense of control in labour, and breastfeeding were not reported under this comparison. Yoga When comparing yoga to control interventions there was low‐quality evidence that yoga lowered pain intensity (measured on a scale of 0 to 10) with low scores indicating less pain) (MD ‐6.12, 95% CI ‐11.77 to ‐0.47, one trial, 66 women), greater satisfaction with pain relief (MD 7.88, 95% CI 1.51 to 14.25, one trial, 66 women) and greater satisfaction with childbirth experience (MD 6.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 12.42 one trial, 66 women (assessed using the Maternal Comfort Scale with higher score indicating greater comfort). Sense of control in labour, breastfeeding, assisted vaginal birth, and caesarean section were not reported under this comparison. Music When comparing music to control interventions there was evidence of lower pain intensity in the latent phase for women receiving music (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) (MD ‐0.73, 95% CI ‐1.01 to ‐0.45, random‐effects analysis, two trials, 192 women) and very low‐quality evidence of no clear benefit in the active phase (MD ‐0.51, 95% CI ‐1.10 to 0.07, three trials, 217 women). Very low‐quality evidence suggested no clear benefit in terms of reducing assisted vaginal birth (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05, one trial, 156 women) or caesarean section rate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.70, two trials, 216 women). Satisfaction with pain relief, sense of control in labour, satisfaction with childbirth experience, and breastfeeding were not reported under this comparison. Audio analgesia One trial evaluating audio analgesia versus control only reported one outcome and showed no evidence of benefit in satisfaction with pain relief. Mindfulness One trial evaluating mindfulness versus usual care found an increase in sense of control for the mindfulness group (using the Childbirth Self‐Efficacy Inventory) (MD 31.30, 95% CI 1.61 to 60.99, 26 women). There is no strong evidence that the effects were any different between groups for satisfaction in childbirth, or for caesarean section rate, need for assisted vaginal delivery or need for pharmacological pain relief. No other outcomes were reported in this trial. Relaxation, yoga and music may have a role with reducing pain, and increasing satisfaction with pain relief, although the quality of evidence varies between very low to low. There was insufficient evidence for the role of mindfulness and audio‐analgesia. The majority of trials did not report on the safety of the interventions. Further randomised controlled trials of relaxation modalities for pain management in labour are needed. Trials should be adequately powered and include clinically relevant outcomes such as those described in this review. Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour What is the issue? This Cochrane Review looked at whether mind‐body techniques for relaxation such as breathing techniques, visualisation, yoga or music would help with reducing pain, and improve women’s experiences of labour. We collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question (date of search: May 2017). Why is this important? The pain of labour can be intense, with body tension, anxiety and fear making it worse. Many women would like to go through labour without using drugs, or invasive methods such as an epidural. These women often turn to complementary therapies to help to reduce the intensity of pain in labour and improve their experiences of labour. Many complementary therapies are used by women in labour, including acupuncture, mind‐body techniques, massage, reflexology, herbal medicines or homoeopathy, hypnosis, music and aromatherapy. Mind‐body techniques for relaxation can be widely accessible to women through the teaching of these techniques during antenatal classes. The relaxation techniques include guided imagery, progressive relaxation and breathing techniques. We also include yoga and music in this review. Other Cochrane Reviews cover hypnosis in labour, manual methods (like massage and reflexology), aromatherapy and acupuncture/acupressure. Many of these relaxation techniques are coping strategies used to reduce the experience of pain. These techniques utilise practices that aim to reduce stress and reduce the perception of pain. It is important to examine if these therapies work and are safe, to enable women to make informed decisions about their care. What evidence did we find? We found 15 studies involving 1731 women that contributed data to the analyses. Studies were undertaken across the world, including countries in Europe and Scandinavia, and Iran, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and USA. We found that relaxation techniques, yoga and music may help women manage labour pain, although the quality of the evidence varied between low and very low, and more data are needed. Also, in these trials there were variations in how these techniques were used. There was no clear evidence that these therapies had an impact on assisted vaginal or caesarean birth. There were insufficient data to say if these techniques influenced the baby’s condition at birth. What does this mean? The use of some relaxation therapies, yoga, or music may possibly be helpful with reducing the intensity of pain, and in helping women feel more in control and satisfied with their labours. However, the wide variations in types of techniques used in these studies make it difficult to say specifically what might help women. Therefore further research studies are needed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                eg
                Enfermería Global
                Enferm. glob.
                Universidad de Murcia (Murcia, Murcia, Spain )
                1695-6141
                2023
                : 22
                : 70
                : 465-496
                Affiliations
                [1] orgnameUniversidad Rovira i Virgili España elisabet.torrubia@ 123456urv.cat
                Article
                S1695-61412023000200017 S1695-6141(23)02207000017
                10.6018/eglobal.529861
                8d4790fe-416b-4c7c-ade7-97757aeb975c

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 International License.

                History
                : 26 September 2022
                : 29 June 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 30, Pages: 32
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Revisiones

                Epidural analgesia,Dolor,Parto,Nacimiento,Terapia complementarias,Métodos no farmacológicos,Analgesia epidural,Pain,Labor,Birth,Complementary therapies,Non-pharmacological method

                Comments

                Comment on this article