Open Access
Open access
volume 16 issue 1 publication number 71

Women’s experiences of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief methods for labour and childbirth: a qualitative systematic review

Gill Thomson 1
Claire Feeley 1
Victoria Hall Moran 1
Soo Downe 1
Olufemi T. Oladapo 2
2
 
Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2019-05-30
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR1.275
CiteScore7.0
Impact factor3.4
ISSN17424755
Reproductive Medicine
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Abstract
Many women use pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief during childbirth. Evidence from Cochrane reviews shows that effective pain relief is not always associated with high maternal satisfaction scores. However, understanding women’s views is important for good quality maternity care provision. We undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis of women’s views and experiences of pharmacological (epidural, opioid analgesia) and non-pharmacological (relaxation, massage techniques) pain relief options, to understand what affects women’s decisions and choices and to inform guidelines, policy, and practice. We searched seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, AJOL), tracked citations and checked references. We used thematic and meta-ethnographic techniques for analysis purposes, and GRADE-CERQual tool to assess confidence in review findings. We developed review findings for each method. We then re-analysed the review findings thematically to highlight similarities and differences in women’s accounts of different pain relief methods. From 11,782 hits, we screened full 58 papers. Twenty-four studies provided findings for the synthesis: epidural (n = 12), opioids (n = 3), relaxation (n = 8) and massage (n = 4) – all conducted in upper-middle and high-income countries (HMICs). Re-analysis of the review findings produced five key themes. ‘Desires for pain relief’ illuminates different reasons for using pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief. ‘Impact on pain’ describes varying levels of effectiveness of the methods used. ‘Influence and experience of support’ highlights women’s positive or negative experiences of support from professionals and/or birth companions. ‘Influence on focus and capabilities’ illustrates that all pain relief methods can facilitate maternal control, but some found non-pharmacological techniques less effective than anticipated, and others reported complications associated with medication use. Finally, ‘impact on wellbeing and health’ reports that whilst some women were satisfied with their pain relief method, medication was associated with negative self-reprisals, whereas women taught relaxation techniques often continued to use these methods with beneficial outcomes. Women report mixed experiences of different pain relief methods. Pharmacological methods can reduce pain but have negative side-effects. Non-pharmacological methods may not reduce labour pain but can facilitate bonding with professionals and birth supporters. Women need information on risks and benefits of all available pain relief methods.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

2
4
6
8
10
12
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
12 publications, 9.84%
Midwifery
9 publications, 7.38%
PLoS ONE
5 publications, 4.1%
Women and Birth
5 publications, 4.1%
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
3 publications, 2.46%
Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing
2 publications, 1.64%
Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology
2 publications, 1.64%
Health Research Policy and Systems
2 publications, 1.64%
Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare
2 publications, 1.64%
Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction
2 publications, 1.64%
Birth
2 publications, 1.64%
Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology
2 publications, 1.64%
International Health
2 publications, 1.64%
Cureus
2 publications, 1.64%
International Journal of Nursing Studies
2 publications, 1.64%
Revista brasileira de enfermagem
2 publications, 1.64%
Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine, and Laser Surgery
1 publication, 0.82%
SAGE Open Medicine
1 publication, 0.82%
Scientific Reports
1 publication, 0.82%
AJOG Global Reports
1 publication, 0.82%
JOGNN - Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing
1 publication, 0.82%
Best Practice and Research in Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology
1 publication, 0.82%
Early Human Development
1 publication, 0.82%
Current Psychology
1 publication, 0.82%
Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health
1 publication, 0.82%
Journal of Clinical Nursing
1 publication, 0.82%
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
1 publication, 0.82%
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
1 publication, 0.82%
Frontiers in Global Women s Health
1 publication, 0.82%
2
4
6
8
10
12

Publishers

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Elsevier
32 publications, 26.23%
Springer Nature
25 publications, 20.49%
MDPI
9 publications, 7.38%
Wiley
9 publications, 7.38%
Taylor & Francis
7 publications, 5.74%
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
5 publications, 4.1%
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
5 publications, 4.1%
Frontiers Media S.A.
3 publications, 2.46%
SAGE
2 publications, 1.64%
Oxford University Press
2 publications, 1.64%
Mark Allen Group
2 publications, 1.64%
Associacao Brasileira de Enfermagem
2 publications, 1.64%
Mary Ann Liebert
1 publication, 0.82%
European Publishing
1 publication, 0.82%
Cambridge University Press
1 publication, 0.82%
BMJ
1 publication, 0.82%
SciELO
1 publication, 0.82%
IntechOpen
1 publication, 0.82%
Lavoisier
1 publication, 0.82%
Medknow
1 publication, 0.82%
PeerJ
1 publication, 0.82%
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
1 publication, 0.82%
A and V Publications
1 publication, 0.82%
FSBEI HE I.P. Pavlov SPbSMU MOH Russia
1 publication, 0.82%
JMIR Publications
1 publication, 0.82%
IMR Press
1 publication, 0.82%
SMW Supporting Association
1 publication, 0.82%
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
122
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Thomson G. et al. Women’s experiences of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief methods for labour and childbirth: a qualitative systematic review // Reproductive Health. 2019. Vol. 16. No. 1. 71
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Thomson G., Feeley C., Moran V. H., Downe S., Oladapo O. T. Women’s experiences of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief methods for labour and childbirth: a qualitative systematic review // Reproductive Health. 2019. Vol. 16. No. 1. 71
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1186/s12978-019-0735-4
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-019-0735-4
TI - Women’s experiences of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief methods for labour and childbirth: a qualitative systematic review
T2 - Reproductive Health
AU - Thomson, Gill
AU - Feeley, Claire
AU - Moran, Victoria Hall
AU - Downe, Soo
AU - Oladapo, Olufemi T.
PY - 2019
DA - 2019/05/30
PB - Springer Nature
IS - 1
VL - 16
PMID - 31146759
SN - 1742-4755
ER -
BibTex
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2019_Thomson,
author = {Gill Thomson and Claire Feeley and Victoria Hall Moran and Soo Downe and Olufemi T. Oladapo},
title = {Women’s experiences of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief methods for labour and childbirth: a qualitative systematic review},
journal = {Reproductive Health},
year = {2019},
volume = {16},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
month = {may},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-019-0735-4},
number = {1},
pages = {71},
doi = {10.1186/s12978-019-0735-4}
}