A historical review of the concept of labor support in technocratic, humanistic and holistic paradigms of childbirth
Keywords:
Supportive Care, Childbirth, Healthcare paradigmsAbstract
Background: In the past century, maternal support during childbirth has been changed according to the different approaches suggested by various health care paradigms.
Objective: The aim of this review was to argue the maternity supportive care paradigms of the past century and to closely analyze each paradigm.
Methods: This is a historical review, in which published articles were retrieved from databases including Scopus, Science Direct, PubMed and Google Scholar. Sage Journals and Springer’s publications were also searched due to the high citation rate of their articles. The keywords entered were "Labor support", "Normal delivery", "Birth attendance", "Supportive approaches", "Health care paradigms", and "Midwifery models of care". They were entered alone or in combinations using "AND". Also, Persian articles were searched in local databases including Irandoc, SID, IranMedex, and Magiran using the above-mentioned keywords in Persian. Sixty articles met inclusion criteria.
Results: The review revealed four main themes including the definitions of continuous labor support, the technocratic paradigm, the humanistic paradigm and the naturalistic paradigm as models of labor support. According to the evidence, labor support has changed from technocratic to humanistic and holistic approaches, which in turn, caused some changes in midwifery models of care used by midwives in the practice.
Conclusion: Labor support based on the holistic approaches and the naturalistic paradigms could bring about remarkable outcomes, the most important being satisfied with the birth experience, increased mother’s self-confidence, enhanced mother’s ability in childbirth and better completion of the childbirth process.
References
Shaw JC. The medicalization of birth and midwifery as resistance. Health Care Women Int. 2013; 34(6):
-36. doi: 10.1080/07399332.2012.736569. PMID: 23514572.
Christiaens W, Nieuwenhuijze MJ, de Vries R. Trends in the medicalisation of childbirth in Flanders and
the Netherlands. Midwifery. 2013; 29(1): e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.08.010. PMID: 23266221.
Davis-Floyd R. The Technocratic, Humanistic, and Holistic Paradigms of Childbirth. Int J Gynaecol
Obstet. 2001: 75(1): s5-s23. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(01)00510-0. PMID: 11742639.
Arab M, Noghabaei G. Importance of holistic view to medical profession. J Med Educ Develop. 2014;
(4): 75-8.
Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. Continuous Support for Women During Childbirth. BIRTH.
; 32: 72-9.
Bryanton J, Fraser-Davey H, Sullivan P. Women's perceptions of nursing support during labor. J Obstet
Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1994; 23(8): 638-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1994.tb01933.x. PMID: 7836988.
Kennell J, Klaus M, McGrath S, Robertson S, Hinkley C. Continuous emotional support during labor in a
US hospital: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1991; 265(17): 2197-201. doi:
1001/jama.1991.03460170051032. PMID: 2013951.
Hodnett ED, Lowe NK, Hannah ME. Continuous labour support by a nurse did not reduce the rate of
cesarean delivery. Evidence-based Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2003; 5: 8-9. doi: 10.1016/S1361- 259X(03)00038-2.
Simkin P. Supportive Care During Labor: A Guide for Busy Nurses. JONNG. 2002: 31(6); 721-32.
Lazarus S. Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American Psychologist. 1982; 37(9):
-24. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.9.1019.
Tumblin A, Simkin P. Pregnant Women’s Perceptions of Their Nurse’s Role During Labor and Delivery.
BIRTH. 2001: 28: 52-6.
Bahri Binabaj N, Latif Nejad R, Esmaili H. Study of the effect of continuous maternal support on
behavioral and physiologic responses to labor pain. J Sabzevar Univ Med. 2005; 1(11): 24-33.
Rosen P. Supporting Women in Labor: Analysis of Different Types of Caregivers. J Midwifery Women’s
Health. 2004; 49(1): 24-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2003.10.013. PMID: 14710137.
Compton JD. Women's experiences and expectations of the physician-patient relationship. A Dissertation
Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree.The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 2005.
Moscrop A. The Captured Womb: A History of the Medical Care of Pregnant Women. BMJ. 2011; 342:
d2531. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2531.
Adams E, Bianchi A. A Practical Approach to Labor Support. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008; 37:
-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00213.x. PMID: 18226164.
Kirkham M, Stapleton H. Midwives' support needs as childbirth changes. J Adv Nurs. 2000; 32(2): 465-72.
Zhang J, Bernasko J, Fahs M. Countanious Labour Support from labour attendant for primeparous women:
A Meta analysis. Obst Gyn. 1996; 88(4): 739-44.
Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. Continuous support for women during childbirth. The
Cochrane Library. 2013. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub5.
Raphael-Leff J. Psychological Processes of Childbearing. Forth Edition. Chapman and Hall; 1991.
Arulkumaran S. Psychosocial support or active management of labour or both to improve the outcome of
labour. BJOG.1999; 106: 617-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08356.x.
Thoits PA. Conceptual, Methodological, and Theoretical Problems in Studying Social Support as a Buffer
Against Life Stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1982; 23: 145-59. doi: 10.2307/2136511. PMID: 7108180.
Miltner R. More Than Support: Nursing Interventions Provided to Women in Labor. J Obstet Gynecol
Neonatal Nurs. 2002; 31(6): 753-61. doi: 10.1177/0884217502239214. PMID: 12465872.
Adams ED, Bianchi AL. A practical approach to labor support. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008;
(1): 106-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00213.x. PMID: 18226164.
Berg GV, Sarvimäki A. A holistic-existential approach to health promotion. Scand J Caring Sci; 2003; 17;
–39. doi: 10.1046/j.0283-9318.2003.00240.x. PMID: 14629641.
McEvoy L, Duffy A. Holistic practice--a concept analysis. Nurse Educ Pract. 2008; 8. doi:
1016/j.nepr.2008.02.002. PMID: 18362085.
Marland H. The Art of Midwifery. The third Edition. Taylor & Francis e-Library; 2005.
Teijlingen E. A Critical Analysis of the Medical Model as used in the Study of Pregnancy and Childbirth.
Socio Res Online. 2005; 10(2).
Karlsdottir S, Halldorsdottir S, Lundgren I. The third paradigm in labour pain preparation and management:
the childbearing woman’s paradigm. Scand J Caring Sci. 2013; 1-13.
Fathi Najafi T, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Ebrahimipour H. The best encouraging persons in labor: A content
analysis of Iranian mothers' experiences of labor support. Plos one. 2017; 12(7): e0179702. doi:
1371/journal.pone.0179702. PMID: 28683112, PMCID: PMC5499987.
Taghizadeh Z, Irajpour A, Nedjat S, Arbabi M, Lopez V. Iranian mothers' perception of the psychological
birth trauma: A qualitative study. Iran J Psychiatry 2014; 9(1): 31-6. PMID: 25561946, PMCID: PMC4277605.
Bahri BN, Latif Nejad N, Taffazoli M. A Study Of The Effect Of Continuous Professional Support During
All Stages Of Maternal Labor On The Level Of Satisfaction Of Primingrevides From The Experience Of
Labor. Journal of Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health. 2003; 11(3): 73-9.
Papagni K, Buckner E. Doula Support and Attitudes of Intrapartum Nurses: A Qualitative Study from the
Patient’s Perspective. J Perin Educ. 2006; 15(1): 11-8. doi: 10.1624/105812406X92949. PMID: 17322940,
PMCID: PMC1595283.
Larkin P, Begley CM, Devane D. Women’s experiences of labour and birth: an evolutionary concept
analysis. Midwifery. 2009; 25: e49–e59. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2007.07.010. PMID: 17996342.
Sauls D. Dimensions of Professional Labor Support for Intrapartum Practice. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2006;
(1): 36-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2006.00075.x. PMID: 16579322.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 KNOWLEDGE KINGDOM PUBLISHING
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
