Use of routine interventions in vaginal labor and birth: findings from the Maternity Experiences Survey.

BACKGROUND Intervention rates in maternity practices vary considerably across Canadian provinces and territories. The objective of this study was to describe the use of routine interventions and practices in labor and birth as reported by women in the Maternity Experiences Survey of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Rates of interventions and practices are considered in the light of current evidence and both Canadian and international recommendations. METHODS A sample of 8,244 estimated eligible women was identified from a randomly selected sample of recently born infants drawn from the May 2006 Canadian Census and stratified primarily by province and territory. Birth mothers living with their infants at the time of interview were invited to participate in a computer-assisted telephone interview conducted by Statistics Canada on behalf of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Interviews averaged 45 minutes long and were completed when infants were between 5 and 10 months old (9-14 mo in the territories). Completed responses were obtained from 6,421 women (78%). RESULTS Women frequently reported electronic fetal monitoring, a health care practitioner starting or speeding up their labor (or trying to do so), epidural anesthesia, episiotomy, and a supine position for birth. Some women also reported pubic or perineal shaves, enemas, and pushing on the top of their abdomen. CONCLUSIONS Several practices and interventions were commonly reported in labor and birth in Canada, although evidence and Canadian and international guidelines recommend against their routine use. Practices not recommended for use at all, such as shaving, were also reported.

[1]  L. Cuervo,et al.  Effects of high volume saline enemas vs no enema during labour – The N-Ma Randomised Controlled Trial [ISRCTN43153145] , 2006, BMC pregnancy and childbirth.

[2]  S. Thacker,et al.  Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment during labor. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[3]  M. Enkin A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth , 1989 .

[4]  J. Kaczorowski,et al.  The Canadian maternity experiences survey: design and methods. , 2008, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC.

[5]  C. F. Wu,et al.  Resampling Inference with Complex Survey Data , 1988 .

[6]  A. Klovning,et al.  Prognostic value of the labour admission test and its effectiveness compared with auscultation only: a systematic review , 2005, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[7]  B. Chalmers,et al.  Assessing effective care in normal labor: the Bologna score. , 2001, Birth.

[8]  R. Smyth,et al.  Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  E. Declercq,et al.  Listening to Mothers: the first national U.S. survey of women's childbearing experiences. , 2002, Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN.

[10]  B. Chalmers,et al.  WHO principles of perinatal care: the essential antenatal, perinatal, and postpartum care course. , 2001, Birth.

[11]  K. Lohr,et al.  Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review. , 2005, JAMA.

[12]  J. Glantz Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor associations and outcomes. , 2005, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[13]  R. McQuivey Vacuum-assisted delivery: a review , 2004 .

[14]  Fetal health surveillance in labour. , 2002 .

[15]  G. Hofmeyr,et al.  Position for women during second stage of labour. , 1999, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[16]  B. Chalmers,et al.  Women's experiences of birth in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, following a maternal and child health intervention program. , 1998, Birth.

[17]  B. Menon,et al.  Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.