The effect of Zhang's guideline vs the WHO partograph on childbirth experience measured by the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire in the Labor Progression Study (LaPS): A cluster randomized trial
- PMID: 34859422
- PMCID: PMC9564810
- DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14298
The effect of Zhang's guideline vs the WHO partograph on childbirth experience measured by the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire in the Labor Progression Study (LaPS): A cluster randomized trial
Abstract
Introduction: Childbirth experience is an increasingly recognized and important measure of quality of obstetric care. Previous research has shown that it can be affected by intrapartum care and how labor is followed. A partograph is recommended to follow labor progression by recording cervical dilation over time. There are currently different guidelines in use worldwide to follow labor progression. The two main ones are the partograph recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) based on the work of Friedman and Philpott and a guideline based on Zhang's research. In our study we assessed the effect of adhering to Zhang's guideline or the WHO partograph on childbirth experience. Zhang's guideline describes expected normal labor progression based on data from contemporary obstetric populations, resulting in an exponential progression curve, compared with the linear WHO partograph. The choice of labor curve affects the intrapartum follow-up of women and this could potentially affect childbirth experience.
Material and methods: The Labor Progression Study (LaPS) study was a prospective, cluster randomized controlled trial conducted at 14 birth centers in Norway. Birth centers were randomized to either follow Zhang's guideline or the WHO partograph. Nulliparous women in active labor, with one fetus in cephalic presentation at term and spontaneous labor onset were included. At 4 weeks postpartum, included women received an online login to complete the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Total score on the CEQ, the four domain scores on the CEQ, and scores on the individual items on the CEQ were compared between the two groups.
Results: There were 1855 women in the Zhang group and 1749 women in the WHO partograph group. There was no difference in the total or domain CEQ scores between the two groups. We found statistically significant differences for two individual items; women in the Zhang group scored lower on positive memories and feeling of control.
Conclusions: Based on our findings on childbirth experience there is no reason to prefer Zhang's guideline over the WHO partograph.
Keywords: WHO partograph; Zhang’s guideline; childbirth experience; labor progression; obstetric.
© 2021 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).
Figures
Similar articles
-
The frequency of intrapartum caesarean section use with the WHO partograph versus Zhang's guideline in the Labour Progression Study (LaPS): a multicentre, cluster-randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2019 Jan 26;393(10169):340-348. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31991-3. Epub 2018 Dec 20. Lancet. 2019. PMID: 30581039 Clinical Trial.
-
Use of the WHO partograph and Zhang's guideline for labor and delivery in China: implications for clinical practice.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024 Nov 27;24(1):799. doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-06985-z. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024. PMID: 39604879 Free PMC article.
-
The Labour Progression Study (LaPS): Duration of labour following Zhang's guideline and the WHO partograph - A cluster randomised trial.Midwifery. 2020 Feb;81:102578. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2019.102578. Epub 2019 Nov 18. Midwifery. 2020. PMID: 31783231 Clinical Trial.
-
Effect of partograph use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term and their babies.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 6;8(8):CD005461. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005461.pub5. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 30080256 Free PMC article.
-
Creating a positive perception of childbirth experience: systematic review and meta-analysis of prenatal and intrapartum interventions.Reprod Health. 2018 May 2;15(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s12978-018-0511-x. Reprod Health. 2018. PMID: 29720201 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Childbirth experiences in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: A cohort study.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024 Jun;103(6):1092-1100. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14800. Epub 2024 Feb 17. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024. PMID: 38366810 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Maternal childbirth experience and time in labor: a population-based cohort study.Sci Rep. 2022 Jul 13;12(1):11930. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-14711-y. Sci Rep. 2022. PMID: 35831421 Free PMC article.
-
Labor curves based on cervical dilatation over time and their accuracy and effectiveness: A systematic scoping review.PLoS One. 2024 Mar 22;19(3):e0298046. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298046. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 38517902 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of collegial midwifery assistance during second stage of labour on women's experience: a follow-up from the Swedish Oneplus randomised controlled trial.BMJ Open. 2024 Jul 27;14(7):e077458. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077458. BMJ Open. 2024. PMID: 39067883 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
References
-
- WHO . WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience 2018. Accessed March 1, 2020. http://apps.WHO.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/260178/9789241550215‐eng... - PubMed
-
- Shorey S, Yang YY, Ang E. The impact of negative childbirth experience on future reproductive decisions: a quantitative systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:1236‐1244. - PubMed
-
- Pang MW, Leung TN, Lau TK, Hang Chung TK. Impact of first childbirth on changes in women's preference for mode of delivery: follow‐up of a longitudinal observational study. Birth. 2008;35:121‐128. - PubMed
-
- Waldenstrom U, Rudman A, Hildingsson I. Intrapartum and postpartum care in Sweden: women's opinions and risk factors for not being satisfied. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85:551‐560. - PubMed
-
- Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;68:1568‐1575. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical