IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0226502.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do midwives facilitate women to give birth during physiological second stage of labour? A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Healy
  • Viola Nyman
  • Dale Spence
  • René H J Otten
  • Corine J Verhoeven

Abstract

Both nationally and internationally, midwives’ practices during the second stage of labour vary. A midwife’s practice can be influenced by education and cultural practices but ultimately it should be informed by up-to-date scientific evidence. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to retrieve evidence that supports high quality intrapartum care during the second stage of labour. A systematic literature search was performed to September 2019 in collaboration with a medical information specialist. Bibliographic databases searched included: PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care Database and The Cochrane Library, resulting in 6,382 references to be screened after duplicates were removed. Articles were then assessed for quality by two independent researchers and data extracted. 17 studies focusing on midwives’ practices during physiological second stage of labour were included. Two studies surveyed midwives regarding their practice and one study utilising focus groups explored how midwives facilitate women’s birthing positions, while another focus group study explored expert midwives’ views of their practice of preserving an intact perineum during physiological birth. The remainder of the included studies were primarily intervention studies, highlighting aspects of midwifery practice during the second stage of labour. The empirical findings were synthesised into four main themes namely: birthing positions, non-pharmacological pain relief, pushing techniques and optimising perineal outcomes; the results were outlined and discussed. By implementing this evidence midwives may enable women during the second stage of labour to optimise physiological processes to give birth. There is, however, a dearth of evidence relating to midwives’ practice, which provides a positive experience for women during the second stage of labour. Perhaps this is because not all midwives’ practices during the second stage of labour are researched and documented. This systematic review provides a valuable insight of the empirical evidence relating to midwifery practice during the physiological second stage of labour, which can also inform education and future research. The majority of the authors were members of the EU COST Action IS1405: Building Intrapartum Research Through Health (BIRTH). The study protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; Registration CRD42018088300) and is published (Verhoeven, Spence, Nyman, Otten, Healy, 2019).

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Healy & Viola Nyman & Dale Spence & René H J Otten & Corine J Verhoeven, 2020. "How do midwives facilitate women to give birth during physiological second stage of labour? A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226502
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226502
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226502&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0226502?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oonagh E Keag & Jane E Norman & Sarah J Stock, 2018. "Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-22, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aneta Słabuszewska-Jóźwiak & Jacek Krzysztof Szymański & Michał Ciebiera & Beata Sarecka-Hujar & Grzegorz Jakiel, 2020. "Pediatrics Consequences of Caesarean Section—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Shelly Jun & Kelsea Drall & Brittany Matenchuk & Cara McLean & Charlene Nielsen & Chinwe V. Obiakor & Aaron Van der Leek & Anita Kozyrskyj, 2018. "Sanitization of Early Life and Microbial Dysbiosis," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Taja Bracic & Isabella Pfniß & Nadja Taumberger & Kaltrina Kutllovci-Hasani & Daniela Ulrich & Wolfgang Schöll & Philipp Reif, 2020. "A 10 year comparative study of caesarean deliveries using the Robson 10 group classification system in a university hospital in Austria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-11, October.
    4. David Card & Alessandra Fenizia & David Silver, 2023. "The Health Impacts of Hospital Delivery Practices," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 42-81, May.
    5. Ana Costa-Ramón & Mika Kortelainen & Ana Rodríguez-González & Lauri Sääksvuori, 2022. "The Long-Run Effects of Cesarean Sections," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(6), pages 2048-2085.
    6. Gwinyai Masukume & Ali S Khashan & Susan M B Morton & Philip N Baker & Louise C Kenny & Fergus P McCarthy, 2019. "Caesarean section delivery and childhood obesity in a British longitudinal cohort study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-13, October.
    7. Lenore Manderson & Fiona C. Ross, 2020. "Publics, technologies and interventions in reproduction and early life in South Africa," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    8. Azahara María García-Serna & Elena Martín-Orozco & Trinidad Hernández-Caselles & Eva Morales, 2021. "Prenatal and Perinatal Environmental Influences Shaping the Neonatal Immune System: A Focus on Asthma and Allergy Origins," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-24, April.
    9. R. Padmasaranya & Kaviya.M & G.Shravanthi & Vadivelan.K, 2020. "To Find the Quality of Life in Multiparae Women Who Have Undergone Multiple C-Section," International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), vol. 7(3), pages 113-114, March.
    10. Monika Bączkowska & Katarzyna Kosińska-Kaczyńska & Magdalena Zgliczyńska & Robert Brawura-Biskupski-Samaha & Beata Rebizant & Michał Ciebiera, 2022. "Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Perinatal Outcomes of Placental Abruption—Detailed Annual Data and Clinical Perspectives from Polish Tertiary Center," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Rubén Aragón-Martín & María del Mar Gómez-Sánchez & David Jiménez-Pavón & José Manuel Martínez-Nieto & Mónica Schwarz-Rodríguez & Carmen Segundo-Iglesias & José Pedro Novalbos-Ruiz & María José Santi-, 2021. "A Multimodal Intervention for Prevention of Overweight and Obesity in Schoolchildren. A Protocol Study “PREVIENE-CÁDIZ”," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-19, February.
    12. Shuqin Zeng & Dhrati Patangia & Alexandre Almeida & Zhemin Zhou & Dezhi Mu & R. Paul Ross & Catherine Stanton & Shaopu Wang, 2022. "A compendium of 32,277 metagenome-assembled genomes and over 80 million genes from the early-life human gut microbiome," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.