An exploratory study of women's experiences and key stakeholders views of moxibustion for cephalic version in breech presentation

Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 264-272

  Mitchell, Mary ^a   Allen, Katherine ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^b NORTH BRISTOL NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breech presentation; Complementary therapies; Moxibustion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREECH PRESENTATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MOXIBUSTION; PREGNANCY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

BREECH PRESENTATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MOXIBUSTION; PREGNANCY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EID: 53649097974     PISSN: 17443881     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2008.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. James D.K., Steer P.J., Weiner C.P., and Gonik R. High Risk Pregnancy. 3rd ed (2006), Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia
2. Daskalakis G., Anastasakis E., Papantoniou N., Mesogitis S., Thomakos N., and Antsaklis A. Caesarean versus vaginal breech delivery for term breech presentation in 2 different study periods. Int J Gynecol Obstet 96 (2007) 162-166
3. Hannah M.E., Hannah W.J., Hewson S.A., Hodnett E.D., Saigal S., and Willan A.R. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomized multicentre trial. Lancet 356 (2000) 1375-1383
4. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of breech presentation. Guideline 20a Dec. London: RCOG; 2006.
5. Hillan E.M. Post-operative morbidity following caesarean delivery. J Adv Nurs 22 (1995) 1035-1042
6. Lobel M., and DeLuca R.S. Psychosocial sequelae of caesarean section: review and analysis of their causes and implications. Soc Sci Med 64 (2007) 2272-2284
7. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. National Sentinel Study of Caesarean Section. Audit report October. London: RCOG; 2001.
8. Tiran D. Breech presentation: increasing maternal choice. Complement Ther Nurs Midwifery 10 (2004) 233-238
9. Smith C., Crowther C., Wilkinson C., Pridmore B., and Robinson J. Knee-chest postural management for breech at term: a randomised controlled trail. Birth 26 (1999) 71-75
10. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R. Cephalic version by postural management for breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2) (Article no. CD000051.DOI).
11. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1996; (2). (Article no. CD000083.DOI).
12. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The management of breech presentation. Guideline 20b Dec. London: RCOG; 2006.
13. Mac Parland P., and Farine D. External version does it have a role in modern obstetric practice. Can Fam Physician 42 (1996) 693-698
14. Salani R., Theiler R., and Lindsay M. Uterine torsion and fetal bradycardia associated with external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol 108 3 Part 2 (2006) 820-822
15. Papp S., Dhaliwal G., Davies G., and Borschneck D. Fetal femur fracture and external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol 104 5 Part 2 (2004) 1154-1156
16. Coltart T., Edmonds D.K., and Al-Mufti R. External version at term: a survey of consultant obstetric practice in the UK. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105 10 (1998) 1043-1045
17. Milligan R., Hannah V., and Donohue B.M. Breech version by Acumoxa (2003), Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington
18. Cardini F., and Weixin H. Moxibustion for correction of breech presentation. JAMA 280 (1998) 1580-1584
19. Budd S. Moxibustion for breech presentation. Complement Ther Nurs Midwifery 6 (2000) 176-179
20. Coyle ME, Smith CA, Peat B. Moxibustion for cephalic version in breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(2).
21. Tiran D. Complementary therapies in maternity care: personal reflections on the last decade. Complement Ther Clin Pract 11 1 (2005) 48-50
22. Cardini F. A moxibustion story: moxibustion for breech: results of study on transferability of treatment to the context of some western hospitals. Midwifery Digest 15 2 (Suppl. 1) (2005) S12-S15
23. Williams J., and Mitchell M. Midwife manger's views of the use of complementary therapies in the maternity services. Complement Ther Clin Pract 13 (2006) 129-135
24. Creswell J.W. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed (2007), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA
25. Robinson A. Phenomenology. In: Cluett R., and Bluff R. (Eds). Principles and practice of research in midwifery (2000), Bailliere Tindall, Edinburgh
26. Todres L., and Holloway I. Descriptive phenomenology. In: Rapport F. (Ed). New qualitative methodologies in health and social care (2004), Routledge, London
27. Richardson A. The health diary: an examination of its use as a data collection method. J Adv Nurs 19 4 (1994) 782-791
28. Department of Health (DOH). Research governance and framework for health and social care (2000), DOH, London
29. Grieg A., and Taylor J. Doing research with children (1999), Sage Publications, London
30. Hallet C. Understanding the phenomenological approach to research. Nurse Res 3 2 (1995) 55-64
31. Brumfield C., Hauth J., and Williams A. Puerpural infection after caesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182 5 (2000) 1147-1151
32. Smaill F, Hofmeyer GJ. Antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean birth. The Cochrane Library Issue 4 The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2000.
33. Chaffer D., and Royle L. The use of audit to explain the rise in caesarean section. BJM 8 11 (2000) 677-684
34. Founds S. Women's and providers' experiences of breech presentation in Jamaica: a qualitative study. Int J Nurs Stud 44 8 (2007) 1391-1399
35. Gamble W.J., and Creedy D.K. Women's preference for a caesarean section: incidence and associated factors. Birth 28 (2001) 101-110
36. Graham W.J., Hundley V., and McCheyne A.L. An investigation of involvement in the decision to delivery by caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106 (1999) 213-220
37. Hildingsson I., Radestad I., Rubertson C., et al. Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 109 (2002) 618-623
38. Raynes-Greenow C.H., Roberts C.L., Barratt A., Brodrick B., and Peat B. Pregnant women's preference and knowledge of term breech management, in an Australian setting. Midwifery 20 (2004) 181-187
39. Nassar N., Roberts C.L., Raynes-Greenow C.H., and Barratt A. Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for women with a breech presentation. Midwifery 23 (2007) 38-47
40. Leung T., Lau T., Lo K., et al. A survey of pregnant women's attitude towards breech delivery and external cephalic version. J Obstetrics Gynaecol 40 (2000) 253-259
41. Ranzini A., Allen A., and Yu-ling L. Use of complementary medicines and therapies among obstetric patients. Obstet Gynaecol 97 491 (2001) s46
42. Ernst E. Direct risks associated with complementary therapies in complementary medicine, an objective appraisal (1996), Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford
43. Kelner M., and Wellman B. Health care and consumer choice: medical and alternative therapies. Soc Sci Med 45 2 (1997) 203-212
44. Eisenberg D.M., Kessler R.C., Rompay M.I., Wilney S.A., and Appel S. Perceptions about complementary therapies relative to conventional therapies among adults who use both; results from a national study. Ann Intern Med 135 (2001) 344-351
45. Betts D. The essential guide to acupuncture in pregnancy and childbirth (2006), Journal of Chinese Medicine Publications, Hove
46. Ewies A., and Olah W.J. Moxibustion in breech version-a descriptive review. Acupunct Med 20 1 (2002) 26-29
47. Hirschkorn K.A., and Bourgeault I.L. Actions speak louder than words: mainstream health providers definitions and behaviour regarding complementary and alternative medicine. Complement Ther Clin Pract 13 1 (2006) 29-37
48. Astin A. The characteristics of CAM users: a complex picture. In: Kelner M., Wellman B., Pescosolido B., and Saks M. (Eds). Complementary and alternative medicine, challenge and change (2003), Routledge, London
49. Connor L.H. Relief, risk and renewal: mixed therapy regimens in an Australian suburb. Soc Sci Med 59 (2004) 1695-1705
50. House of Lords. Report into complementary and alternative medicine. London: House of Lords; 2000.
51. Mitchell M., Williams J., Hobbs E., and Pollard K. The use of complementary therapies in maternity services: a survey. Br J Midwifery 14 10 (2006) 576-592
52. Nursing and Midwifery Council. Midwives rules. London: NMC; 2004.
53. Heller T., Lee-Treweek G., Katz J., Stone J., and Spurr S. Perspectives on complementary and alternative medicine (2005), OUP, Oxford
54. Thomas K.J., and Fitter M.J. Evaluating complementary therapies for use in the National Health Service: Horses for Courses. Part 2 Alternative research strategies. Complement Ther Med 5 (1997) 94-98