Comparison of labour and birth outcomes between nulliparous women who used epidural analgesia in labour and those who did not: A prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare labour and birth outcomes between nulliparous women who used versus did not use intrapartum epidural analgesia. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two maternity hospitals in Ireland. POPULATION: A total of 1221 nulliparous women who gave birth vaginally or by emergency caesarean section. METHODS: Multinomial logistic regression was used to analyse categorical outcomes, with results presented as ratios of relative risks (RRR). For dichotomous outcomes we used logistic regression, with results presented as odds ratios (OR). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mode of birth, IV syntocinon use, pyrexia (≥38°C), antibiotic treatment, first stage labour ≥10h, second stage labour ≥2h, blood loss (≥500mls, ≥1000mls), perineal trauma. Neonatal outcomes included Apgar score ≥7 at 1min and 5min, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, and infant feeding method. RESULTS: Women using EA were more likely to require a vacuum-assisted birth (RRR 3.35, p<0.01) or forceps-assisted birth (RRR 11.69, p<0.01). Exposure to EA was associated with significantly greater risk of ≥10h first (OR 6.72, p=0.01) and ≥2h second (OR 2.25, p<0.01) stage labour, increased likelihood of receiving IV syntocinon (OR 9.38, p<0.01), antibiotics (OR 2.97, p<0.01) and a greater probability of pyrexia (OR 10.26, p<0.01). Women who used EA were half as likely to be breastfeeding at three months postpartum (OR 0.53, p<0.01). No differences were observed between groups in neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our data shows significant associations between EA use and several intrapartum outcomes.

Paradox of the institution: findings from a hospital labour ward ethnography.

BACKGROUND: Interest in the influence of culture on birth practices is on the rise, and with it comes a sense of urgency to implement practices that aid the normalisation and humanisation of birth. This groundswell is occurring despite a broader cultural milieu of escalating technology-use and medicalisation of birth across the globe. Against this background, rates of epidural analgesia use by women in labour are increasing, despite the risk of side effects. Socio-cultural norms and beliefs are likely to influence pain relief choices but there is currently scant research on this topic. METHODS: This study was undertaken to gain insight into the personal, social, cultural and institutional influences on women in deciding whether or not to use epidural analgesia in labour. The study had an ethnographic approach within a theoretical framework of Critical Medical Anthropology (CMA), Foucauldian and feminist theory. Given the nature of ethnographic research, it was assumed that using the subject of epidural analgesia to gain insight into Western birth practices could illuminate broader cultural ideals and that the epidural itself may not remain the focus of the research. RESULTS: Findings from the study showed how institutional surveillance, symbolised by the Journey Board led to an institutional momentum that in its attempt to keep women safe actually introduced new areas of risk, a situation which we named the Paradox of the institution. CONCLUSIONS: These findings, showing a risk/safety paradox at the centre of institutionalised birth, add a qualitative dimension to the growing number of quantitative studies asserting that acute medical settings can be detrimental to normal birth practices and outcomes.

Critical Medical Anthropology in Midwifery Research: A Framework for Ethnographic Analysis.

In this article, we discuss the use of critical medical anthropology (CMA) as a theoretical framework for research in the maternity care setting. With reference to the doctoral research of the first author, we argue for the relevance of using CMA for research into the maternity care setting, particularly as it relates to midwifery. We then give an overview of an existing analytic model within CMA that we adapted for looking specifically at childbirth practices and which was then used in both analyzing the data and structuring the thesis. There is often no clear guide to the analysis or writing up of data in ethnographic research; we therefore offer this Critical analytic model of childbirth practices for other researchers conducting ethnographic research into childbirth or maternity care.

Documenting risk: A comparison of policy and information pamphlets for using epidural or water in labour.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of Australian women use epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour, and its use is increasing. While epidural analgesia is considered a safe option from an anaesthetic point of view, its use transfers a labouring woman out of the category of 'normal' labour and increases her risk of intervention. Judicious use of epidural may be beneficial in particular situations, but its current common use needs to be assessed more closely. This has not yet been explored in the Australian context. AIM: To examine personal, social, institutional and cultural influences on women in their decision to use epidural analgesia in labour. Examining this one event in depth illuminates other birth practices, which can also be analysed according to how they fit within prevailing cultural beliefs about birth. METHODS: Ethnography, underpinned by a critical medical anthropology methodology. RESULTS: These findings describe the influence of risk culture on labour ward practice; specifically, the policies and practices surrounding the use of epidural analgesia are contrasted with those on the use of water. Engaging with current risk theory, we identify the role of power in conceptualisations of risk, which are commonly perpetuated by authority rather than evidence. CONCLUSIONS: As we move towards a risk-driven society, it is vital to identify both the conception and the consequences of promulgations of risk. The construction of waterbirth as a 'risky' practice had the effect of limiting midwifery practice and women's choices, despite evidence that points to the epidural as the more 'dangerous' option.