Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Jul 12;6(7):e010691.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010691.

Complementary therapies for labour and birth study: a randomised controlled trial of antenatal integrative medicine for pain management in labour

Kate M Levett  1 , C A Smith  1 , A Bensoussan  1 , H G Dahlen  2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Complementary therapies for labour and birth study: a randomised controlled trial of antenatal integrative medicine for pain management in labour

Kate M Levett et al. BMJ Open. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effect of an antenatal integrative medicine education programme in addition to usual care for nulliparous women on intrapartum epidural use.

Design: Open-label, assessor blind, randomised controlled trial.

Setting: 2 public hospitals in Sydney, Australia.

Population: 176 nulliparous women with low-risk pregnancies, attending hospital-based antenatal clinics.

Methods and intervention: The Complementary Therapies for Labour and Birth protocol, based on the She Births and acupressure for labour and birth courses, incorporated 6 evidence-based complementary medicine techniques: acupressure, visualisation and relaxation, breathing, massage, yoga techniques, and facilitated partner support. Randomisation occurred at 24-36 weeks' gestation, and participants attended a 2-day antenatal education programme plus standard care, or standard care alone.

Main outcome measures: Rate of analgesic epidural use. Secondary: onset of labour, augmentation, mode of birth, newborn outcomes.

Results: There was a significant difference in epidural use between the 2 groups: study group (23.9%) standard care (68.7%; risk ratio (RR) 0.37 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.55), p≤0.001). The study group participants reported a reduced rate of augmentation (RR=0.54 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.77), p<0.0001); caesarean section (RR=0.52 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.87), p=0.017); length of second stage (mean difference=-0.32 (95% CI -0.64 to 0.002), p=0.05); any perineal trauma (0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98), p=0.02) and resuscitation of the newborn (RR=0.47 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.87), p≤0.015). There were no statistically significant differences found in spontaneous onset of labour, pethidine use, rate of postpartum haemorrhage, major perineal trauma (third and fourth degree tears/episiotomy), or admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (p=0.25).

Conclusions: The Complementary Therapies for Labour and Birth study protocol significantly reduced epidural use and caesarean section. This study provides evidence for integrative medicine as an effective adjunct to antenatal education, and contributes to the body of best practice evidence.

Trial registration number: ACTRN12611001126909.

Keywords: COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE; Caesarean section; Epidural; antenatal education; normal birth; randomised controlled trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT flow chart of CTLB study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA et al. . The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Rep 2010;30:1–31.
    1. WHO. Caesarean sections should only be performed when medically necessary. Executive summary. In: WHO , ed. Geneva: WHO, 2015:8.
    1. Bryant R. Improving maternity services in Australia: the report of the maternity services review. In: Australia Co , ed. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2009.
    1. Anim-Somuah M, Smyth RM, Jones L. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011(12):CD000331 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. King T. Epidural anesthesia in labor benefits versus risks. J Nurse Midwifery 1997;42:377–88. 10.1016/S0091-2182(97)00052-9 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources