Midwives and women's experiences of Sterile Water Injections for back pain during labour: An integrative review.

Experiences Integrative review Labour pain Midwife Sterile water injections

Journal

Midwifery
ISSN: 1532-3099
Titre abrégé: Midwifery
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 8510930

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Historique:
received: 11 09 2020
revised: 30 08 2021
accepted: 28 09 2021
pubmed: 21 10 2021
medline: 25 11 2021
entrez: 20 10 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

/ OBJECTIVE: This integrative review summarises original research that explores the experiences and perceptions of midwives and women using sterile water injections (SWI's) during labour. Integrative review. A robust search strategy was conducted using the following databases: Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Ovid Medline and PubMed. All articles were assessed for quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools (2017) scoring. Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) five stage approach was used to analyse the primary literature related to midwives and women's experiences of sterile water injections (SWI's) for back pain during labour. A total of 291 articles were retrieved and 13 papers were included in this review (four qualitative including one case report and nine quantitative) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three overarching themes were identified: 'Assessment, perception and communication of pain', 'Techniques of administration of SWI's' and 'Barriers and resistance to using SWI's'. The 'Assessment, perception and communication of pain' theme included four subthemes: 'balancing the expectation of the injection pain against pain relief'; 'using appropriate language to prepare women'; 'rapid onset and increased pain relief with SWI's in comparison to saline'; and 'midwives high considerations for using SWI's as a form of pain relief'. The 'Techniques of administration of SWI's' theme included two subthemes: 'intradermal is better than subcutaneous injections'; and, 'four injections is better than one'. The 'Barriers and facilitators to using SWI's' theme included four subthemes: 'guidelines and evidence'; 'level of experience'; 'midwifery philosophy challenges'; and 'resistance from colleagues'. For example, 'midwifery philosophy challenges' included midwives being conflicted about providing an invasive, painful procedure as counter-intuitive to supporting women through the pain of labour. Midwives need opportunities to learn and develop skills for using SWI's. Women described feeling more empowered during their labour and appreciated the use of SWI's including the rapid onset of pain relief and the absence of side effects. The ability for women to exert some control over their pain whilst still being able to experience the physical sensations of labour and birth was important. The review supports the evidence for the use of SWI's however, there is limited evidence available and more information needs to be provided about the benefits of this non-pharmacological technique for back pain during labour. Generalised guidelines are needed to ensure consistent practice in the provision of care for women experiencing back pain during labour.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
/ OBJECTIVE: This integrative review summarises original research that explores the experiences and perceptions of midwives and women using sterile water injections (SWI's) during labour.
DESIGN METHODS
Integrative review.
METHODS METHODS
A robust search strategy was conducted using the following databases: Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Ovid Medline and PubMed. All articles were assessed for quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools (2017) scoring. Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) five stage approach was used to analyse the primary literature related to midwives and women's experiences of sterile water injections (SWI's) for back pain during labour.
FINDINGS RESULTS
A total of 291 articles were retrieved and 13 papers were included in this review (four qualitative including one case report and nine quantitative) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three overarching themes were identified: 'Assessment, perception and communication of pain', 'Techniques of administration of SWI's' and 'Barriers and resistance to using SWI's'. The 'Assessment, perception and communication of pain' theme included four subthemes: 'balancing the expectation of the injection pain against pain relief'; 'using appropriate language to prepare women'; 'rapid onset and increased pain relief with SWI's in comparison to saline'; and 'midwives high considerations for using SWI's as a form of pain relief'. The 'Techniques of administration of SWI's' theme included two subthemes: 'intradermal is better than subcutaneous injections'; and, 'four injections is better than one'. The 'Barriers and facilitators to using SWI's' theme included four subthemes: 'guidelines and evidence'; 'level of experience'; 'midwifery philosophy challenges'; and 'resistance from colleagues'. For example, 'midwifery philosophy challenges' included midwives being conflicted about providing an invasive, painful procedure as counter-intuitive to supporting women through the pain of labour. Midwives need opportunities to learn and develop skills for using SWI's. Women described feeling more empowered during their labour and appreciated the use of SWI's including the rapid onset of pain relief and the absence of side effects. The ability for women to exert some control over their pain whilst still being able to experience the physical sensations of labour and birth was important.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE CONCLUSIONS
The review supports the evidence for the use of SWI's however, there is limited evidence available and more information needs to be provided about the benefits of this non-pharmacological technique for back pain during labour. Generalised guidelines are needed to ensure consistent practice in the provision of care for women experiencing back pain during labour.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34670166
pii: S0266-6138(21)00244-8
doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2021.103164
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Water 059QF0KO0R

Types de publication

Case Reports Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

103164

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest None declared N/A

Auteurs

Virginia Stulz (V)

Western Sydney University & Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District, Centre for Nursing and Midwifery Research, First Floor - Court Building - Nepean Hospital, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District, PO Box 63, Penrith NSW 2751 Australia. Electronic address: V.stulz@westernsydney.edu.au.

Xiaoting Liang (X)

Registered Midwife Bankstown Hospital, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Locked Mail Bag 1600, BANKSTOWN NSW 2200PO Box 63, Penrith NSW 2751 Australia.

Elaine Burns (E)

Western Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Building EB/LG Room 43, Parramatta South Campus, Locked Bag 1797 Penrith NSW 2751 Australia. Electronic address: e.burns@westernsydney.edu.au.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH