IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v23y2014i17-18p2473-2480.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of cold pack on labour pain relief and birth outcomes: a randomised controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Marjan Ahmad Shirvani
  • Jila Ganji

Abstract

Aims and objectives (1) To evaluate the influence of local cold on severity of labour pain and (2) to identify the effect of local cold on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Background Fear of labour pain results in an increase in pain and duration of labour, maternal discontent and demand for caesarean section. Regarding maternal and foetal complications of analgesic medications, the attention to application of nonpharmacological methods including cold therapy is increased. Design Randomised controlled trial. Methods Sixty‐four pregnant women, at initiation of active phase of labour, were allocated randomly to cold therapy and control groups (n = 64). Null parity, term pregnancy, presence of single foetus, cephalic presentation and completing informed consent were considered as inclusion criteria. Administration of analgesic and anaesthesia, foetal distress, skin lesions in regions of cold therapy and high‐risk pregnancy provided exclusion criteria. Cold pack was applied over abdomen and back, for 10 minutes every 30 minutes during first phase of labour. Additionally, cold pack was placed over perineum, for 5 minutes every 15 minutes during second phase. Pain severity was assessed based on the visual analogue scale. Results The two groups were not significantly different considering demographic data, gestational age, foetal weight, rupture of membranes and primary severity of pain. Degree of pain was lower in cold therapy group during all parts of active phase and second stage. Duration of all phases was shorter in cold therapy group in all phases. Foetal heart rate, perineal laceration, type of birth, application of oxytocin and APGAR score were not significantly different between two groups. Conclusion Labour pain is probably reduced based on gate theory using cold. Pain control by cold maybe improves labour progression without affecting mother and foetus adversely. Relevance to clinical practice Local cold therapy could be included in labour pain management.

Suggested Citation

  • Marjan Ahmad Shirvani & Jila Ganji, 2014. "The influence of cold pack on labour pain relief and birth outcomes: a randomised controlled trial," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(17-18), pages 2473-2480, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:17-18:p:2473-2480
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12413
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12413?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. Niven, Catherine & Gijsbers, Karel, 1984. "A study of labour pain using the MCGILL pain questionnaire," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 19(12), pages 1347-1351, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carmel McCarthy, 2018. "Intrauterine contraception insertion pain: nursing interventions to improve patient experience," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1-2), pages 9-21, January.

    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. Iwona Czech & Piotr Fuchs & Anna Fuchs & Miłosz Lorek & Dominika Tobolska-Lorek & Agnieszka Drosdzol-Cop & Jerzy Sikora, 2018. "Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Methods of Labour Pain Relief—Establishment of Effectiveness and Comparison," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-11, 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:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:17-18:p:2473-2480. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.