Professionals’ views of fetal monitoring during labour: a systematic review and thematic analysis

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Declan Devane²  Mike Clarke³  Cecily M Begley¹  Valerie Smith¹ 

[1] School of Nursing & Midwifery, University of Dublin, Trinity College Dublin, 24, D’Olier St, Dublin, Ireland;School of Nursing & Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland;All-Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern, Ireland

关键词: Views;    Labour;    Pregnancy;    Fetal monitoring;   

Others  :  1151315
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-12-166

 received in 2012-09-24, accepted in 2012-12-17,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Current recommendations do not support the use of continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for low risk women during labour, yet EFM remains widespread in clinical practice. Consideration of the views, perspectives and experiences of individuals directly concerned with EFM application may be beneficial for identifying barriers to and facilitators for implementing evidence-based maternity care. The aim of this paper is to offer insight and understanding, through systematic review and thematic analysis, of research into professionals’ views on fetal heart rate monitoring during labour.

Methods

Any study whose aim was to explore professional views of fetal monitoring during labour was considered eligible for inclusion. The electronic databases of MEDLINE (1966–2010), CINAHL (1980–2010), EMBASE (1974–2010) and Maternity and Infant Care: MIDIRS (1971–2010) were searched in January 2010 and an updated search was performed in March 2012. Quality appraisal of each included study was performed. Data extraction tables were developed to collect data. Data synthesis was by thematic analysis.

Results

Eleven studies, including 1,194 participants, were identified and included in this review. Four themes emerged from the data: 1) reassurance, 2) technology, 3) communication/education and 4) midwife by proxy.

Conclusion

This systematic review and thematic analysis offers insight into some of the views of professionals on fetal monitoring during labour. It provides evidence for the continuing use of EFM when caring for low-risk women, contrary to current research evidence. Further research to ascertain how some of these views might be addressed to ensure the provision of evidence-based care for women and their babies is recommended.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Smith et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GM: Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006, 3:CD006066).
• [2]Devane D, Lalor JG, Daly S, McGuire W, Smith V: Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, (Issue 2):Art. No: CD005122.
• [3]Devane D, Lalor J, Bonnar J: The use of intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: a national survey. Ir Med J 2007, 100(2):360-362.
• [4]Holzmann M, Nordström L: Follow-up national survey (Sweden) of routines for intrapartum fetal surveillance. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010, 89:712-714.
• [5]Goldsmith MR, Bankhead CR, Austoker J: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative research in evidence-based patient information. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007, 61:262-270.
• [6]Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, Martin MA, Mugford M, Nielson J, Roberts T: Women's views of ultrasound in pregnancy: a systematic review. Birth 2002, 29(4):225-250.
• [7]Lucas P, Baird J, Arai L, Law C, Roberts HM: Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7(4):1-7.
• [8]Lakshman R, Ogilvie D, Ong KK: Mothers' experiences of bottle-feeding: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Arch Dis Child 2009, 94:596-601.
• [9]Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R, Roberts K: Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. J Eval Clin Pract 2001, 7(2):125-133.
• [10]Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, Shaw RL, Smith JA, Young B: How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Health Res 2006, 6(1):27-44.
• [11]Thomas J, Sutcliffe K, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Rees R, Brunton G, Kavanagh J: Children and healthy eating: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. London: EPPI-Centre, Institute of Education, University of London; 2003.
• [12]Horsley T, Dingwall O, Sampson M: Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, (8):MR000026.
• [13]Sandelowski M, Docherty S, Emden C: Focus on qualitative methods Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Res Nurs Health 1997, 20(4):365-371.
• [14]Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton AJ: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10(1):45-53.
• [15]Sinclair M, Gardner J: Midwives' perceptions of the use of technology in assisting childbirth in Northern Ireland. J Adv Nurs 2001, 36(2):229-236.
• [16]Starkman M: Fetal Monitoring: Psychologic consequences and management recommendations. Obstet Gynecol 1977, 50(4):500-504.
• [17]Davey HM, Lim J, Butow PN, Barratt AL, Redman S: Women's preferences for and views on decision-making for diagnostic tests. Soc Sci Med 2004, 58:1699-1707.
• [18]Jackson JE, Vaughan M, Black P, D'Souza SW: Psychological aspects of fetal monitoring: maternal reaction to the position of the monitor and staff behaviour. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1983, 2(2):97-102.
• [19]Shalev E, Eran A, Harpaz-Kerpel S, Zuckerman H: Psychogenic stress in women during fetal monitoring (hormonal profile). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1985, 64:417-420.
• [20]Hindley C, Hinsliff SW, Thomson AM: English midwives' views and experiences of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring in women at low obstetric risk: conflicts and compromises. J Midwifery Womens Health 2006, 51(5):354-360.
• [21]Hindley C, Thomson AM: The rhetoric of informed choice: perspectives from midwives on intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Health Expect 2005, 8:306-314.
• [22]Hindley C, Thomson AM: Intrapartum fetal monitoring and the spectre of litigation A qualitative study of midwives' views. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 2007, 12(4):233-243.
• [23]Dover S, Gauge S: Fetal monitoring: midwifery attitudes. Midwifery 1995, 11(1):18-27.
• [24]Munro J, Ford H, Scott A, Furnival E, Andrews S, Grayson A: Action research project responding to midwives's views of different methods of fetal monitoring in labour. MIDIRS: Midwifery Digest 2002, 12(4):495-498.
• [25]Walker DS, Shunkwiler S, Supanich J, Williamsen J, Yensch A: Labor and delivery nurse's attitudes towards intermittent fetal monitoring. J Midwifery Womens Health 2001, 46(6):374-380.
• [26]Blix E, Ohlund L: Norwegian midwives' perception of the labour admission test. Midwifery 2007, 23(1):48-58.
• [27]Hill K: An exploration of the views and experiences of midwives using intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart during labour. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin; 2011.
• [28]Birch L, Thompson B: Survey into fetal monitoring practices and attitudes. British Journal of Midwifery 1997, 5(12):732-734.
• [29]Cranston CS: Obstetrical nurses' attitudes toward fetal monitoring. JOGNN Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing 1980, 9(6):344-347.
• [30]McKevitt S, Gillen P, Sinclair M: Midwives' and doctors' attitudes towards the use of the cardiotocograph machine. Midwifery 2011, 27:e279-e285.
• [31]Altaf S, Oppenheimer C, Shaw R, Waugh J, Dixon-Woods M: Practice and views on fetal heart monitoring: a structured observation and interview study. BJOG 2006, 113:409-418.
• [32]Sinclair M: Midwives' attitudes to the use of the cardiotocograph machine. J Adv Nurs 2001, 35(4):599-606.
• [33]Ayres-de-Campos D, Bernardes J, Costa-Pereira A, Pereira-Leite L: Inconsistencies in classification by experts of cardiotocograms and subsequent clinical decision. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999, 106(12):1307-1310.
• [34]Devane D, Lalor J: Midwives' visual interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocographs: intra- and inter-observer agreement. J Adv Nurs 2005, 52(2):133-141.
• [35]Smith V, Devane D, Murphy-Lawless J: Risk in maternity care: a concept analysis. International Journal of Childbirth 2012, 2(2):126-135.
• [36]NICE: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence: Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. London: RCOG Press; 2007.
• [37]Garcia J, Corry M, MacDonald D, Elbourne D, Grant A: Mother's views of continuous electronic fetal heart monitoringand intermittent auscultation in randomised trials. Birth 1985, 12(2):79-86.
• [38]Hindley C, Hinsliff SW, Thomson AM: Pregnant womens' views about choice of intrapartum monitoring of the fetal heart rate: a questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud 2008, 45(2):224-231.
• [39]Shearer M: Fetal heart monitoring: For better or for worse? Compulsory Hospital 1979, 121:127.