Comparing Different Partograph Designs for Use in Standard Labor Care: A Pilot Randomized Trial

被引:8
|
作者
Lee, Nigel J. [1 ,2 ]
Neal, Jeremy [3 ]
Lowe, Nancy K. [4 ]
Kildea, Sue V. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Sch Nursing Midwifery & Social Work, Midwifery Res Unit, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Mater Res Inst UQ, Mater Hlth Serv, Aubigny Pl,Raymond Terrace, South Brisbane, Qld 4101, Australia
[3] Vanderbilt Univ, Sch Nursing, Nashville, TN 37240 USA
[4] Univ Colorado, Coll Nursing, Aurora, CO USA
关键词
Action line partograph; First stage labor; Labor dystocia; Partograph; Stepped line partograph; Partogram; NULLIPAROUS WOMEN; ABNORMAL LABOR; ACTIVE LABOR; LOW-RISK; MANAGEMENT; OUTCOMES; CERVICOGRAPHS; PRIMIGRAVIDAE; ONSET; LINE;
D O I
10.1007/s10995-017-2366-0
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Backgound Partographs are used in many labour settings to provide a pictorial overview of a woman's cervical dilation pattern in the first stage of labor and to alert clinicians to slow progress possibly requiring intervention. Recent reviews called for large trials to establish the efficacy of partographs to improve birth outcomes whilst highlighting issues of clinician compliance with use. Previous studies have also reported issues with participant recruitment related to concerns regarding the possibility of a longer labour. Objectives We sought to compare a standard partograph with an action line, to a newly designed partograph with a stepped line, to determine the feasibility of recruitment to a larger clinical trial. Methods A pragmatic, single-blind randomised trial wherein low-risk, nulliparous women in spontaneous labour at term were randomized to an action-line or stepped-line partograph. First stage labour management was guided by the allocated partograph. Primary outcomes included the proportion of eligible women recruited, reasons for failed recruitment and compliance with partograph use. Secondary outcomes included rates of intervention, mode of birth, maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results Of the 384 potentially eligible participants, 38% (149/384) were approached. Of these 77% (116/149) consented, with 85% (99/116) randomized, only nine women approached (6%) declined to participate. A further 9% (14/149) who were consented antenatally were not eligible at onset of labor and 7% (10/149) of women approached in the birth suite but did not meet the inclusion criteria. Compliance with partograph completion was 65% (action) versus 84% (dystocia line). Conclusions for Practice Participant recruitment to a larger randomized controlled trial comparing new labour management guidelines to standard care is feasible. Effective strategies to improve partograph completion compliance would be required to maintain trial fidelity.
引用
收藏
页码:355 / 363
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparing Different Partograph Designs for Use in Standard Labor Care: A Pilot Randomized Trial
    Nigel J. Lee
    Jeremy Neal
    Nancy K. Lowe
    Sue V. Kildea
    Maternal and Child Health Journal, 2018, 22 : 355 - 363
  • [2] Comparing compliance with commencement and use of two partograph designs for women in active labour: A randomised controlled trial
    Lee, Nigel
    Flynn, Julie
    Gao, Yu
    Kildea, Sue
    WOMEN AND BIRTH, 2023, 36 (01) : E17 - E24
  • [3] Management of Spontaneous Labor in Primigravidae: Labor Scale versus WHO Partograph (SLiP Trial) Randomized Controlled Trial
    Tolba, Sara M.
    Ali, Shymaa S.
    Mohammed, Abdelrahman M.
    Michael, Armia K.
    Abbas, Ahmed M.
    Nassr, Ahmed A.
    Shazly, Sherif A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2018, 35 (01) : 48 - 54
  • [4] A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing effectiveness of prism glasses, visual search training and standard care in hemianopia
    Rowe, F. J.
    Conroy, E. J.
    Bedson, E.
    Cwiklinski, E.
    Drummond, A.
    Garcia-Finana, M.
    Howard, C.
    Pollock, A.
    Shipman, T.
    Dodridge, C.
    MacIntosh, C.
    Johnson, S.
    Noonan, C.
    Barton, G.
    Sackley, C.
    ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2017, 136 (04): : 310 - 321
  • [5] THE USE OF A BIRTHROOM - A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL COMPARING DELIVERY WITH THAT IN THE LABOR WARD
    CHAPMAN, MG
    JONES, M
    SPRING, JE
    DESWIET, M
    CHAMBERLAIN, GVP
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1986, 93 (02): : 182 - 187
  • [6] A Randomized Trial Comparing Standard of Care to Bayesian Warfarin Dose Individualization
    Xue, Ling
    Ma, Guangda
    Holford, Nick
    Qin, Qiong
    Ding, Yinglong
    Hannam, Jacqueline A.
    Ding, Xiaoliang
    Fan, Hongyou
    Ji, Zhenchun
    Yang, Biwen
    Shen, Han
    Shen, Zhenya
    Miao, Liyan
    CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2024, 115 (06) : 1316 - 1325
  • [7] The Labor Progression Study: The use of oxytocin augmentation during labor following Zhang's guideline and the WHO partograph in a cluster randomized trial
    Dalbye, Rebecka
    Bernitz, Stine
    Olsen, Inge Christoffer
    Zhang, Jun
    Eggebo, Torbjorn Moe
    Rozsa, Daniella
    Froslie, Kathrine Frey
    Oian, Pal
    Blix, Ellen
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2019, 98 (09) : 1187 - 1194
  • [8] Stepped and Standard Care for Childhood Trauma: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial
    Salloum, Alison
    Small, Brent J.
    Robst, John
    Scheeringa, Michael S.
    Cohen, Judith A.
    Storch, Eric A.
    RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE, 2017, 27 (06) : 653 - 663
  • [9] Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing use of Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography to Standard Care during Radical Cystectomy
    Dhawan, Richa
    Shahul, Sajid
    Roberts, Joseph Devin
    Smith, Norm D.
    Steinberg, Gary D.
    Chaney, Mark A.
    ANNALS OF CARDIAC ANAESTHESIA, 2018, 21 (03) : 255 - 261
  • [10] A Randomized Trial Comparing Cardiac Rehabilitation to Standard of Care for Adults With Congenital Heart Disease
    Opotowsky, Alexander R.
    Rhodes, Jonathan
    Landzberg, Michael J.
    Bhatt, Ami B.
    Shafer, Keri M.
    Yeh, Doreen DeFaria
    Crouter, Scott E.
    Tikkanen, Ana Ubeda
    WORLD JOURNAL FOR PEDIATRIC AND CONGENITAL HEART SURGERY, 2018, 9 (02) : 185 - 193