Advertisement
JOGC

Canadian Registered Midwives’ Experiences With Nipple Stimulation: An Exploratory Survey in British Columbia and Ontario

      Abstract

      Objective

      The objective of our study was to explore Canadian registered midwives’ (RMs’) experiences with nipple stimulation.

      Methods

      An online survey was distributed to practising RMs in British Columbia and Ontario.

      Results

      In total 350 RMs completed the survey. Of these, 154 (44%) practised in British Columbia and 196 (56%) practised in Ontario. This represents a response rate of 53.3% and 20.6% in B.C. and Ontario, respectively. Ninety-six percent of those surveyed (337 RMs) reported having advised clients to use nipple stimulation as a means of releasing oxytocin, and 80% (267 RMs) considered nipple stimulation to be effective. Respondents reported 926 protocols for nipple stimulation. The most common indication for nipple stimulation was for labour augmentation, used by 92% of respondents.

      Conclusion

      Nipple stimulation is widely used by RMs practising in British Columbia and Ontario. Survey respondents believed it to be effective and beneficial in mitigating the need for synthetic oxytocin. Survey results showed that the most common indication for nipple stimulation is labour augmentation. Future research should prospectively address the safety and effectiveness of this non-medical method of labour augmentation.

      Résumé

      Objectif

      L'objectif de notre étude était d’étudier les expériences des sages-femmes autorisées (SFA) au Canada en matière de stimulation des mamelons.

      Méthodologie

      Les SFA en exercice en Colombie-Britannique et en Ontario ont été invitées à participer à un sondage en ligne.

      Résultats

      Au total, 350 SFA ont répondu au sondage. De ce nombre, 154 (44 %) pratiquaient en Colombie-Britannique et 196 (56 %), en Ontario, ce qui correspond à un taux de réponse de 53,3 % et de 20,6 % en Colombie-Britannique et en Ontario, respectivement. Parmi les personnes interrogées, 96 % (337 SFA) ont indiqué avoir conseillé à des clientes d'utiliser la stimulation du mamelon comme moyen de sécréter de l'ocytocine, et 80 % (267 SFA) jugent que la stimulation du mamelon est efficace. Les répondantes ont rapporté 926 protocoles de stimulation des mamelons. La dystocie dynamique est l'indication la plus fréquente pour la stimulation des mamelons, utilisée par 92 % des répondantes.

      Conclusion

      La stimulation des mamelons est largement utilisée par les SFA qui pratiquent en Colombie-Britannique et en Ontario. Les répondantes au sondage estiment qu'elle est efficace et bénéfique pour diminuer le besoin d'administrer de l'ocytocine synthétique. Les résultats du sondage ont montré que la dystocie dynamique est l'indication la plus fréquente pour la stimulation des mamelons. Les recherches futures devront aborder prospectivement l'innocuité et l'efficacité de cette méthode non médicale pour remédier à la dystocie dynamique.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Curtis P
        Breast stimulation to augment labor: history, mystery, and culture.
        Birth. 1999; 26: 123-126
        • Chayen B
        • Kim YM
        Results of 317 contraction stress tests with controlled nipple stimulation using an electric breast pump.
        J Reprod Med. 1988; 33: 214-216
        • Copel JA
        • Otis CS
        • Stewart E
        • et al.
        Contraction stress testing with nipple stimulation.
        J Reprod Med. 1985; 30: 465-471
        • Lagrew Jr, DC
        The contraction stress test.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 38: 11-25
        • Lenke RR
        • Nemes JM
        Use of nipple stimulation to obtain contraction stress test.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1984; 63: 345-348
        • Palmer SM
        • Martin JN
        • Moreland ML
        • et al.
        Contraction stress test by nipple stimulation: efficacy and safety.
        South Med J. 1986; 79: 1102-1105
        • Rosenzweig BA
        • Levy JS
        • Schipiour P
        • et al.
        Comparison of the nipple stimulation and exogenous oxytocin contraction stress tests. A randomized, prospective study.
        J Reprod Med. 1989; 34: 950-954
        • Keegan KA
        • Freeman RK
        • Dorchester WL
        The breast stimulated contraction stress test.
        J Reprod Med. 1987; 32: 919-923
        • Keegan Jr, KA
        • Helm DA
        • Porto M
        • et al.
        A prospective evaluation of nipple stimulation techniques for contraction stress testing.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 157: 121-125
        • Kim YM
        • Tejani N
        • Chayen B
        • et al.
        Management of the third stage of labor with nipple stimulation.
        J Reprod Med. 1986; 31: 1033-1034
        • Razgaitis EJ
        • Lyvers AN
        Management of protracted active labor with nipple stimulation: a viable tool for midwives?.
        J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010; 55: 65-69
        • College of Midwives of Ontario (CMO)
        2018 2019 Annual Report.
        CMO, Toronto, ONMarch 31, 2019: 24 (Available at:)
        • Stein JL
        • Bardequez AD
        • Verma UL
        • et al.
        Nipple stimulation for labor augmentation.
        J Reprod Med. 1990; 35: 710-714