Background: The World Health Organization recommends preserving the physiology of childbirth. For a normal birth, the guidelines define obstetric practices in four categories, ranging from useful and to be encouraged to harmful and to be eliminated. Objective: to describe new mothers’ perception of care during childbirth in the light of the World Health Organization model. Methods: Cross-sectional study. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used for data collection. Convenience sample of 180 mothers. The average age was 30.8 years-old (SD=5.31). Results: On their own initiative, before leaving for the maternity, women carried out at home, some care not recommended by World Health Organization, like pubic shaving (83.7%). Category A represents above all the lack of a birth plan (80.6%), mobility (71.3%), massage /54.2%) and light feeding (72.6%). Positively represented are skin-to-skin contact (77%) and breast-feeding (75.6%). Category B highlights intravenous fluids access (81.6%), lithotomy position for delivery (82.9%) and directed pushing (86.9%). Pubic shaving is recognized by about 22% of participants. The Kristeller maneuver or fundal pressure, is widely applied in Category D (59.9%), highlighting continuous cardiotocography (89.2%), repeated vaginal examination carried out by various professionals (78.5%) and episiotomy (69.2%). Conclusion: The World Health Organization model is weakly implemented. The medicalized culture of childbirth seems to predominate in phenomena of human nature.
| Published in | American Journal of Nursing Science (Volume 6, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ajns.20170606.15 |
| Page(s) | 478-485 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Labor, Normal Birth, Nursing, Midwifery, Obstetrics
| [1] | H. Dunsworth and L. Eccleston, "The evolution of difficult childbirth and helpless hominin infants," Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 44, pp. 55-69, 2015. |
| [2] | C. Montenegro and J. Rezende, Rezende. Obstetrícia Fundamental, 13th ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan, 2014, p. 766. |
| [3] | W. R. Trevathan and K. R. Rosenberg, "Caesarean section," (in eng), Evol Med Public Health, vol. 2014, no. 1, p. 164, 2014. |
| [4] | J. Rocha and P. Novaes, "Uma reflexão após 23 anos das recomendações da Organização Mundial da Saúde para parto normal," Femina, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 119-126, 2010. |
| [5] | United Nations, The millenium development goals report 2015. New York: United Nations, 2015, p. 75. |
| [6] | M.-C. Farver, "Birth Intuition," Nursing For Women's Health, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 380, 2015. |
| [7] | M. Odent, Childbirth in the ages of plastics. London: Effra Parade, 2011. |
| [8] | WHO, Care in normal birth: a practical guide. Geneve: Department of Reproductive Health & Research. World Health Organization, 1996. |
| [9] | AWHONN, "Joint Policy Statement on Normal Childbirth," Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1163-1165, 2008. |
| [10] | UNFPA, U. N. P. Fund, Ed. The state of the world's midwifery 2014. State of the World’s Midwifery 2014: A Universal Pathway – A Woman’s Right to Health. Prague, 2014, p. 228. |
| [11] | OE and APEO, Documento de consenso “Pelo direito ao parto normal. Uma visão partilhada”. Lisboa: Ordem dos Enfermeiros, 2012. |
| [12] | M. Amorim and L. Katz. (2012, 25th may 2016). Continuous support for women during childbirth: RHL commentary (last revised: 1 May 2012). |
| [13] | L. Almeida and T. Freire, Metodologia da Investigação em Psicologia e Educação, 5ª ed. Lisboa: Psiquilíbrios, 2017. |
| [14] | J. Coad and M. Dunstall, Anatomy and Physiology for Midwives, 4th ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier, 2012, p. 456. |
| [15] | D. J. Walsh, "'Nesting' and 'Matrescence' as distinctive features of a free-standing birth centre in the UK," (in eng), Midwifery, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 228-39, Sep 2006. |
| [16] | M. Iravani, M. Janghorbani, E. Zarean, and M. Bahrami, "An overview of systematic reviews of normal labor and delivery management," (in eng), Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 293-303, 2015 May-Jun 2015. |
| [17] | L. Jansen, M. Gibson, B. C. Bowles, and J. Leach, "First do no harm: interventions during childbirth," (in eng), J Perinat Educ, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 83-92, 2013. |
| [18] | A. Lawrence, L. Lewis, G. J. Hofmeyr, and C. Styles, "Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour," (in eng), Cochrane Database Syst Rev, vol. 10, p. CD003934, 2013. |
| [19] | N. C. Sharts-Hopko, "Oral intake during labor: a review of the evidence," (in eng), MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 197-203; quiz 204-5, 2010 Jul-Aug 2010. |
| [20] | M. Singata, J. Tranmer, and G. M. Gyte, "Restricting oral fluid and food intake during labour," (in eng), Cochrane Database Syst Rev, no. 8, p. CD003930, 2013. |
| [21] | C. R. Maganha e Melo and J. C. Peraçoli, "Measuring the energy spent by parturient women in fasting and in ingesting caloric replacement (Honey)," (in eng), Rev Lat Am Enfermagem, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 612-7, 2007 Jul-Aug 2007. |
| [22] | E. R. Moore, G. C. Anderson, N. Bergman, and T. Dowswell, "Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants," (in eng), Cochrane Database Syst Rev, vol. 5, p. CD003519, 2012. |
| [23] | J. Stevens, V. Schmied, E. Burns, and H. Dahlen, "Immediate or early skin-to-skin contact after a Caesarean section: a review of the literature," Maternal & Child Nutrition, Article vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 456-473, 2014. |
| [24] | L. Reveiz, H. G. Gaitán, and L. G. Cuervo, "Enemas during labour," (in eng), Cochrane Database Syst Rev, no. 7, p. CD000330, 2013. |
| [25] | R. F. Altaweli, C. McCourt, and M. Baron, "Childbirth care practices in public sector facilities in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: a descriptive study," (in eng), Midwifery, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 899-909, Jul 2014. |
| [26] | V. Basevi and T. Lavender, "Routine perineal shaving on admission in labour," (in eng), Cochrane Database Syst Rev, no. 11, p. CD001236, 2014. |
| [27] | J. A. Lothian, "Healthy birth practice #4: avoid interventions unless they are medically necessary," (in eng), J Perinat Educ, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 198-206, 2014. |
| [28] | J. K. Gupta, G. J. Hofmeyr, and M. Shehmar, "Position in the second stage of labour for women without epidural anaesthesia," (in eng), Cochrane Database Syst Rev, no. 5, p. CD002006, 2012. |
| [29] | A. Lemos, M. M. Amorim, A. Dornelas de Andrade, A. I. de Souza, J. E. Cabral Filho, and J. B. Correia, "Pushing/bearing down methods for the second stage of labour," (in eng), Cochrane Database Syst Rev, no. 10, p. CD009124, 2015. |
| [30] | A. Sartore et al., "The effects of uterine fundal pressure (Kristeller maneuver) on pelvic floor function after vaginal delivery," (in eng), Arch Gynecol Obstet, vol. 286, no. 5, pp. 1135-9, Nov 2012. |
| [31] | E. C. Verheijen, J. H. Raven, and G. J. Hofmeyr, "Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour," (in eng), Cochrane Database Syst Rev, no. 4, p. CD006067, 2009. |
| [32] | D. Devane, J. G. Lalor, S. Daly, W. McGuire, and V. Smith, "Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing," (in eng), Cochrane Database Syst Rev, no. 2, p. CD005122, 2012. |
| [33] | A. F. Bell, E. N. Erickson, and C. S. Carter, "Beyond labor: the role of natural and synthetic oxytocin in the transition to motherhood," (in eng), J Midwifery Womens Health, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 35-42: quiz 108, 2014 Jan-Feb 2014. |
| [34] | S. Downe, G. M. Gyte, H. G. Dahlen, and M. Singata, "Routine vaginal examinations for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term," (in eng), Cochrane Database Syst Rev, vol. 7, p. CD010088, 2013. |
| [35] | I. Melo, L. Katz, I. Coutinho, and M. M. Amorim, "Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial," (in eng), Reprod Health, vol. 11, p. 66, 2014. |
APA Style
Maria Marques, Margarida Sim-Sim. (2017). Perception of be Cared in Childbirth at the Light of the WHO Model. American Journal of Nursing Science, 6(6), 478-485. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajns.20170606.15
ACS Style
Maria Marques; Margarida Sim-Sim. Perception of be Cared in Childbirth at the Light of the WHO Model. Am. J. Nurs. Sci. 2017, 6(6), 478-485. doi: 10.11648/j.ajns.20170606.15
AMA Style
Maria Marques, Margarida Sim-Sim. Perception of be Cared in Childbirth at the Light of the WHO Model. Am J Nurs Sci. 2017;6(6):478-485. doi: 10.11648/j.ajns.20170606.15
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ajns.20170606.15,
author = {Maria Marques and Margarida Sim-Sim},
title = {Perception of be Cared in Childbirth at the Light of the WHO Model},
journal = {American Journal of Nursing Science},
volume = {6},
number = {6},
pages = {478-485},
doi = {10.11648/j.ajns.20170606.15},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajns.20170606.15},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajns.20170606.15},
abstract = {Background: The World Health Organization recommends preserving the physiology of childbirth. For a normal birth, the guidelines define obstetric practices in four categories, ranging from useful and to be encouraged to harmful and to be eliminated. Objective: to describe new mothers’ perception of care during childbirth in the light of the World Health Organization model. Methods: Cross-sectional study. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used for data collection. Convenience sample of 180 mothers. The average age was 30.8 years-old (SD=5.31). Results: On their own initiative, before leaving for the maternity, women carried out at home, some care not recommended by World Health Organization, like pubic shaving (83.7%). Category A represents above all the lack of a birth plan (80.6%), mobility (71.3%), massage /54.2%) and light feeding (72.6%). Positively represented are skin-to-skin contact (77%) and breast-feeding (75.6%). Category B highlights intravenous fluids access (81.6%), lithotomy position for delivery (82.9%) and directed pushing (86.9%). Pubic shaving is recognized by about 22% of participants. The Kristeller maneuver or fundal pressure, is widely applied in Category D (59.9%), highlighting continuous cardiotocography (89.2%), repeated vaginal examination carried out by various professionals (78.5%) and episiotomy (69.2%). Conclusion: The World Health Organization model is weakly implemented. The medicalized culture of childbirth seems to predominate in phenomena of human nature.},
year = {2017}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Perception of be Cared in Childbirth at the Light of the WHO Model AU - Maria Marques AU - Margarida Sim-Sim Y1 - 2017/12/27 PY - 2017 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajns.20170606.15 DO - 10.11648/j.ajns.20170606.15 T2 - American Journal of Nursing Science JF - American Journal of Nursing Science JO - American Journal of Nursing Science SP - 478 EP - 485 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2328-5753 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajns.20170606.15 AB - Background: The World Health Organization recommends preserving the physiology of childbirth. For a normal birth, the guidelines define obstetric practices in four categories, ranging from useful and to be encouraged to harmful and to be eliminated. Objective: to describe new mothers’ perception of care during childbirth in the light of the World Health Organization model. Methods: Cross-sectional study. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used for data collection. Convenience sample of 180 mothers. The average age was 30.8 years-old (SD=5.31). Results: On their own initiative, before leaving for the maternity, women carried out at home, some care not recommended by World Health Organization, like pubic shaving (83.7%). Category A represents above all the lack of a birth plan (80.6%), mobility (71.3%), massage /54.2%) and light feeding (72.6%). Positively represented are skin-to-skin contact (77%) and breast-feeding (75.6%). Category B highlights intravenous fluids access (81.6%), lithotomy position for delivery (82.9%) and directed pushing (86.9%). Pubic shaving is recognized by about 22% of participants. The Kristeller maneuver or fundal pressure, is widely applied in Category D (59.9%), highlighting continuous cardiotocography (89.2%), repeated vaginal examination carried out by various professionals (78.5%) and episiotomy (69.2%). Conclusion: The World Health Organization model is weakly implemented. The medicalized culture of childbirth seems to predominate in phenomena of human nature. VL - 6 IS - 6 ER -
Information
Email: