Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Effect of Change in Position and Back Massage on Pain Perception during First Stage of Labor.

Pain management nursing : official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses
June 1, 2018
Suad Abdul-Sattar Khudhur Ali et al. (2 authors)
Controlled Clinical TrialJournal ArticleHuman StudyClinical
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to compare the impact of frequent position changes versus back massage on pain perception during the first stage of labor.

Results Summary

Back massage showed lower mean pain scores compared to position changes and the control group, suggesting it may be more effective for pain management during labor. Significant differences in pain scores were observed after each intervention.

Population

Eighty women in the first stage of labor at a teaching hospital in Kurdistan, Iraq.

Effective Dosage

Not specified (intervention performed at three points).

Duration

Not specified (interventions occurred during the first stage of labor).

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (8)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
frequent change in positions
decrease
pain during the first stage of labor
women
-
may be effective in reducing
#1
back massage
decrease
pain during the first stage of labor
women
-
may be effective in reducing
#2
frequent changes in position
neutral
pain perception
20 women (group A)
mean rank 52.33, 47.00, 49.2 after first, second, and third interventions
had pain scores
#3
back massage
neutral
pain perception
20 women (Group B)
mean rank 32.8, 30.28, 30.38 after first, second, and third interventions
had pain scores
#4
-
neutral
pain perception
40 women control group (group C)
mean rank 38.44, 42.36, 41.21 after first, second, and third interventions
had pain scores
#5
frequent changes in position, back massage, control
neutral
pain perception
groups A, B, and C
-
significant differences between
#6
back massage
decrease
pain during the first stage of labor
-
-
may be a more effective pain management approach than
#7
change in position
decrease
pain during the first stage of labor
-
-
less effective pain management approach than back massage for
#8
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Labor is one of the most painful events in a women's life. Frequent change in positions and back massage may be effective in reducing pain during the first stage of labor. AIM: The focus of this study was to identify the impact of either change in position or back massage on pain perception during first stage of labor. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental study. SETTING: Teaching hospital, Kurdistan Region, Iraq, November 2014 to October 2015. SUBJECTS: Eighty women were interviewed as a study sample when admitted to the labor and delivery area and divided into three groups: 20 women received frequent changes in position (group A), 20 women received back massage (Group B), and 40 women constituted the control group (group C). METHODS: A structured interview questionnaire to collect background data was completed by the researcher in personal interviews with the mothers. The intervention was performed at three points in each group, and pain perception was measured after each intervention using the Face Pain Scale. RESULTS: The mean rank of the difference in pain scores among the study groups was as follows after the first, second, and third interventions, respectively: group A-52.33, 47.00, 49.2; group B-32.8, 30.28, 30.38; group C-38.44, 42.36, 41.21. There were significant differences between groups A, B, and C after the first, second, and third interventions (p CONCLUSIONS: Back massage may be a more effective pain management approach than change in position during the first stage of labor.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
AdultFemaleHumansLabor PainLabor Stage, FirstMassageNursing ProcessObstetric NursingPain MeasurementPosturePregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult
Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy85/10
Quality70/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations16
Citations/Year2.3
Relative Citation Ratio1.65
NIH Percentile68.4%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.75
Weight Score1.93
Normalized Score0.68
Related Supplements