thanks Ellen and everyone else who has replied so far
this is really interesting
it raises the question of whether women's actual experience has changed
- there are several reasons you have given which might explain this
or whether (or maybe as well) the norms against which progress is judged
have gradually shifted
Soo has sent some references to changing statements on norms in
midwifery text books and I was planning myself to look at the textbooks
I have access to from different time periods, to see if the comments on
this have changed, or even whether norms are given
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
research. on behalf of Ellen Blix
Sent: Tue 13-Feb-07 7:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: length of labour
Dear Chris
Metchild Gross in Germany has done interesting research on duration of
labour.
What you asked was if there is evidence on whether norms of length of
labour
have changed. I haven't seen any research about that. Recently, I
scrutinised Scandinavian and British textbooks (midwifery and
obstetrics)
and guidelines to find how duration of labour was described, and there
were
great variations on how long normal labour could last.
According to the Medical Birth Register of Norway 2004, 31% of all women
had
"slow progress in labour" and 29% had their labours augmented because of
ineffective cantractions (or "weak contractions", the Norwegian word is
"risvekkelse", ri=contraction, svekke= weaken). These variables have
been
systematically registered since 2001 so we do not know if they have
changed
over time. So what is the reason for all this slow progress and the weak
contractions? There is of course an increase in the mean weight of the
newborns (and their mothers and fathers as well), more epidurals and I
have
heard that there is an increasing incidence of occiput posterior during
labour. Still, one third of all women in Norway are perceived to have
slow
progress of labour....
Ellen
Norway
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol Cameron" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: length of labour
> Chris,
>
> Here is a study from 1986, while not recent is certainly more current
that
> Friedman. Bottom line is a finding that most (90%) of women who went
on to
> vaginal birth dilated at greater than1cm/hr after reaching 5 cm of
> dilation.
>
>
> Peisner DB, Rosen MG: Transition from latent to active labor. Obstet
> Gynecol
> 68:448, 1986.
>
> Carol
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
> research.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris McCourt
> Sent: February 12, 2007 12:05 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: length of labour
>
> dear all
>
> I'm interested to know whether there is any written or research
evidence
> on whether norms of the length of labour have changed in the recent
> past. I'm aware of the impact of Friedmans work on practices in labour
> wards, but am wondering whether there is anything to suggest further
> trends in what is seen as a 'normal' length of labour (and by
> association, whether this could be related, in either direction, to
> rising intervention rates)
>
> all ideas on relevant evidence sources, or personal/professional
> observations welcome
>
> Chris
|