Onset of labour: women’s experiences and midwives’ assessments in relation to first stage duration
- 598 Downloads
The study aimed to assess the time of labour onset and its symptoms as perceived by women in labour and midwives, and the relationship between these and first stage duration.
A longitudinal cohort study of women with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation was performed in 41 maternity units. The sample comprised 1,170 women, 611 nulliparae (np) and 559 multiparae (mp), who answered two standardized questions on the onset of labour and selected the applicable symptoms of labour onset from a list of eight. A multivariate Cox regression model was computed covering further perinatal factors.
The median durations of the first stage of labour as assessed by the women themselves were 11 (np) and 6.5 h (mp), and as assessed by the midwives 7 (np) and 4 h (mp). Median time intervals between the start of labour onset symptoms as perceived by the women concerned and the midwives’ diagnoses varied greatly: the shortest related to watery fluid loss (np = 1.5 h, mp = 0.0 h), the longest to alterations in sleep patterns (np = 11.5 h, mp = 4.5 h). Irregular pain, watery fluid loss and the time between self-diagnosed and professionally diagnosed onset of labour were just as closely associated with the duration of the first stage of labour as perinatal factors. Significant perinatal factors were induction with oxytocin, herbal remedies and PROM.
The perceptions of women in labour are as important as perinatal factors in determining the duration of the first stage of labour and should be taken into account in intrapartum care.
KeywordsOnset of labour Women’s views First stage duration Dynamics during labour Women’s symptoms of labour onset Midwives’ assessment
This study was funded by the German Research Council. We are grateful to Paul Wenzlaff of the Chamber of Physicians of Lower Saxony, Centre for Quality and Management in Health Care, for support during data collection, and to Gertrud M. Ayerle for commenting on an earlier draft of this paper.
Conflict of interest statement
- 1.Crowther C, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC (1989) Monitoring the progress of labour. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC (eds) Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 833–845Google Scholar
- 4.Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, Neilson J, Crowther C, Duley L, Hodnett E, Hofmeyr J (eds) (2000) A guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 5.Gross MM, Keirse MJNC (2002) The clinical onset of labour in obstetric research. Z ärztl Fortbild Qual 96:665–670 German Journal for Evidence and Quality in Health CareGoogle Scholar
- 9.Hodnett E, Stremler R, Willan AR, Weston JA, Lowe NK, Simpson KR, Fraser WD, Gafni A (2008) the SELAN Trial Group. Effect on birth outcomes of a formalised approach to care in hospital labour assessment units: international, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 337:a1021. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Spiby H, Green JMG, Renfrew MJ, Crawshaw S, Stewart P, Lishman J, et al. (2008) Improving care at the primary/secondary interface: a trial of community-based support in early labour. The ELSA trial. Final report submitted to the National Co-ordinating Centre for NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation (NCCSDO), under peer reviewGoogle Scholar
- 16.Gross MM, Schwarz C, Burian RA, Keirse MJNC, Hecker H (2007) Midwifery teams differ in their opinions regarding study participation. Birth Issues 15:77–82Google Scholar
- 17.Centre for Quality and Management in Health Care Physician Chamber of Lower Saxony, Hannover (ZQ) (2006). http://www.zq-aekn.de/
- 18.Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple testing procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
- 19.Development Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing (2005). Version 2.2.1 R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
- 20.Stadelmann I (2002) Die Hebammensprechstunde. Stadelmann Verlag, ErmengerstGoogle Scholar