Evidence-informed obstetric practice during normal birth in China: trends and influences in four hospitals

Table 4 Obstetric practices during vaginal delivery (including vacuum and forceps delivery) in 1999 and 2003 by hospital in women surveyed

	Specialist		City MCH		District		County
Vaginal deliveries (women)	1999	2003	1999	2003	1999	2003	1999	2003
	n = 75	n = 77	N = 82	n = 95	n = 41	n = 68	n = 105	n = 116
Avoid as routine†
Episiotomy (%)	70 (93)	74 (96)	74 (90)	94 (99)*	36 (88)	63 (93)	68 (65)	88 (76)
Pubic shaving	0 (0)	0 (0)	82 (100)	43 (45)**	39 (95)	68 (100)	98 (93)	102 (88)
Rectal examination	71 (95)	0 (0)**	0 (0)	0 (0)	39 (95)	68 (100)	103 (98)	105 (91)*
Electronic FHR	75 (100)	75 (97)	76 (93)	87 (92)	37 (90)	65 (96)	1 (1)	31 (27)**
Enemas	1 (1)	0 (0)	1 (1)	0 (0)	22 (54)	2 (3)**	0 (0)	5 (4)
Encourage as routine†
Companionship during labour¹	6 (8)	12 (16)	30 (37)	45 (49)	38 (93)	62 (93)	8 (17)	9 (9)
Mobility during labour¹	27 (37)	60 (78)**	19 (23)	47 (51)**	23 (56)	19 (28)**	8 (17)	31 (29)
Non-supine position in Labour	0(0)	1(1)	0(0)	1(1)	0(0)	0(0)	3(3)	1(0.9)

† Procedures categorized with reference to research evidence from Cochrane Systematic Reviews
¹ Some women were directly sent to delivery room, so for companionship and mobility the sample size at the City MCH, District and County hospital in the follow-up study is 92, 67 and 106 respectively in 2003. In the 1999 study, the sample size of the Specialist and the County hospitals was 74 and 46 respectively.
* P-value < 0.05 (Chi² test)
** P-value < 0.01 (Chi² test)
Data source: exit interviews with postpartum women

ISSN: 1472-6963