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
  • [21] Comparing second-line tests to assess fetal wellbeing in Labor: a feasibility study and pilot randomized controlled trial
    Hughes, O.
    Murphy, D. J.
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2022, 35 (01): : 91 - 99
  • [22] Expert consensus recommendations on the use of randomized clinical trials for drug approval in psychiatry- comparing trial designs
    Similon, Miriam von Mucke
    Paasche, Cecilia
    Krol, Fas
    Lerer, Bernard
    Goodwin, Guy M.
    Berk, Michael
    Meyer-Lindenberg, Andreas
    Ketter, Terence A.
    Yatham, Lakshmi N.
    Goldberg, Joseph F.
    Malhi, Gin S.
    El-Mallakh, Rif
    Licht, Rasmus W.
    Young, Allan H.
    Kapczinski, Flavio
    Swartz, Marnina
    Hagin, Michal
    Torrent, Carla
    Serretti, Alessandro
    Yildiz, Aysegul
    Martinez-Aran, Anabel
    Strejilevich, Sergio
    Rybakowski, Janusz
    Sani, Gabriele
    Grunze, Heinz
    Vazquez, Gustavo
    Pinto, Ana Gonzales
    Azorin, Jean Michel
    Nolen, Willem
    Sentissi, Othman
    Lopez-Jaramillo, Carlos
    Frey, Benicio N.
    Nierenberg, Andrew
    Parker, Gordon
    Bond, David J.
    Cohen, Adam
    Tortorella, Alfonso
    Perugi, Giulio
    Vieta, Eduard
    Popovic, Dina
    EUROPEAN NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY, 2022, 60 : 91 - 99
  • [23] A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing bupivacaine with ropivacaine for labor analgesia
    Halpern, SH
    Breen, TW
    Campbell, DC
    Muir, HA
    Kronberg, J
    Nunn, R
    Fick, GH
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2003, 98 (06) : 1431 - 1435
  • [24] Glucose Control in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Pilot Randomized Study Controlled by Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Comparing the Use of Insulin Glargine with Standard of Care
    Sampaio, Celia R.
    Franco, Denise R.
    Goldberg, David J.
    Baptista, Juliana
    Eliaschewitz, Freddy Goldberg
    DIABETES TECHNOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2012, 14 (02) : 117 - 124
  • [25] Proactive vs standard support of labor -a randomized controlled clinical trial
    Larsen, Marit
    Underdal, Maria
    Sadat, Negin
    Laache, Ingebjorg
    Brenne, Moyfrid
    Dahlo, Raija
    Bernitz, Stine
    Vanky, Eszter
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2023, 102 : 44 - 45
  • [26] A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing surfaxin (lucinactant) lavage with standard care for treatment of meconium aspiration syndrome
    Wiswell, TE
    Knight, GR
    Finer, NN
    Donn, SM
    Desai, H
    Walsh, WF
    Sekar, KC
    Bernstein, G
    Keszler, M
    Visser, VE
    Merritt, TA
    Mannino, FL
    Mastrioianni, L
    Marcy, B
    Revak, SD
    Tsai, H
    Cochrane, CG
    PEDIATRICS, 2002, 109 (06) : 1081 - 1087
  • [27] A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Flat Times Versus Standard Care in Pediatric Patients Post Cardiac Catheterization
    Raic, Rebecca
    Steurer, Lisa M.
    Balakas, Karen
    Ercole, Patrick M.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR NURSING, 2020, 35 (03) : 307 - 313
  • [28] PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL COMPARING ROUTINE INTRAOPERATIVE TRANSESOPHAGEAL ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY TO STANDARD CARE DURING RADICAL CYSTECTOMY
    Kellman, S.
    Roberts, J. D.
    Chaney, M.
    Negron, E.
    ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2014, 118 : S53 - S53
  • [29] A randomized controlled trial comparing a multimodal intervention and standard obstetrics care for low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy
    George, James W.
    Skaggs, Clayton D.
    Thompson, Paul A.
    Nelson, D. Michael
    Gavard, Jeffrey A.
    Gross, Gilad A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 208 (04) : 295.e1 - 295.e7
  • [30] A randomized control trial comparing holistic needs assessment with standard care in an outpatient cancer setting: preliminary findings
    Young, Jenny
    Snowden, Austyn
    PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2016, 25 : 2 - 3