discomforts experienced by women during pregnancy

discomforts experienced by women during pregnancy

Introduction

Recent medical reports have presented significant findings about the discomforts experienced by women during pregnancy. Many researchers, however, argue that the effects of such discomforts are always self-limiting and minor to the lifestyles of women. Lumbopelvic pain (LPP) is an example of musculoskeletal complaints that is described as “minor discomforts.” Women, on the other hand, may experience substantial levels of pain and disability, with economic and social consequences. Studies also show that lumbopelvic pain can cause an impact on the psychological health, impact sick leave and equally transform to a chronic pain condition. Several women have been reported to be requesting an elective caesarean or an early induction of labour in order to reduce the pain felt (Pierce et al., 2012). The central purpose of the author is to explore the nature and prevalence of lumbopelvic pain felt by women, especially during pregnancy. The design carried out for this purpose is a cross-sectional and descriptive study. The authors based their research on an Australian public hospital where women who were in their trimester of pregnancy acted as the sample population.

The authors further used a significant method when carrying out the study, which involved recruiting women to the study from how they presented themselves for their antenatal appointment. Demographic data were obtained through a survey that was also used to self-report lumbopelvic pain. On the other hand, a pain diagram was used to differentiate combined pain, pelvic girdle, or low back. The sample populations comprised of pregnant women were also given the opportunity of expressing their experiences mainly through open and close-ended questions. The authors further used the Oswestry Disability Index and the Visual Analogue Scale as means of measuring the main outcome. The results after the study showed a high prevalence of about 71% of self-reported lumbopelvic pain (LPP) during the pregnancy period (Pierce et al., 2012). The result also showed an association between the previous history of (LPP), multi-parity and the reporting of LPP. Furthermore, through closed and open-ended questions, it was noted that four out of five women reported disability linked with the condition and the mean intensity score was 6/10 for usual pain.

Article analysis

The result from the study presented significant findings considering that Pierce and colleagues were able to answer the raised question. The results supported a high rate of lumbopelvic pain (LPP) among women who were pregnant, which stood at 71% period prevalence on the day of pregnancy and 34% point prevalence on the day of the survey. The question of whether there is a high rate of lumbopelvic pain experienced by women, especially during pregnancy, has efficiently been answered by the authors who showed a high prevalence. The research has also presented new factual information by comparing it to other studies that use a cross-sectional survey design and equally have similar definitions. The new phenomenon is based on a survey of 891 women in Sweden, with 72% having reported the prevalence of LPP within 24 hours of birth (Pierce et al., 2012). Seemingly, a period prevalence of 72% is obtained from a calculation from a study of 213 Japanese women who, at the time of the study, had surpassed the 36 weeks’ gestation.

The research by Pierce et al. also analyses the fact that many medical practitioners perceive LPP as a normal discomfort of pregnancy. Most comments from women, however, put much emphasis on the inadequate acknowledgement of LPP by some healthcare givers an there was also a lot of focus on the negative impact of pain on the lifestyles of pregnant women. The article further creates significant discussions about the level of pain felt by the women. While some women felt minimal pain that technically produces a discomfort, other women perceived the pain to be considerable. Besides, the Oswestry Disability index has provided important data in the attempts to measure interferences in daily activities as a result of pain. In the report, forty women who represented 65% showed a mild disability and 23 percent of women presented a moderate disability (Pierce et al., 2012). A lot of assumptions can, therefore, be raised from the findings. For instance, it is clear at least four out of five pregnant women who showed cases of lumbopelvic pain were subject to negative lifestyle with fingers pointing towards disability and pain. The thematic analysis presents a hypothesis that the impact of LPP on psychological health and the lifestyle of a woman is a balance between disability, presumed pain and the ability of the woman to seek help and employ coping strategies.

Text Evaluation

The introduction of the research is one that is easy to read and understand, and readers are well engaged with the sequence of statements. However, not all information leads coherently to the purpose of the study. For example there is no proper explanation given on the Antenatal Care Guidelines that refers conditions of symphysis pubis dysfunction, and backache during pregnancy as aspect that need more research (Pierce et al., 2012). The introduction, on the other hand, has elaborated on the objective of the study and readers can easily comprehend the direction of the paper. The objective of study is also clear as it aims towards investigating the nature and prevalence of lumbo-pelvic pain (LPP) by women in the sacro-iliac area, lumbar during the pregnancy period.

The cross-sectional descriptive study which is the major method used in the research is certainly valid for studying the problem and generally proved to be effective in the research. The study which is way descriptive was conducted in form of a survey that was self-administered to a cross-sectional cohort of 105 multiparous women who had already reached the 28 weeks gestation period with a singleton pregnancy (Pierce et al., 20112). Although a survey proved to be effective method, there were also negative aspects arising that could have led to unreliable information. Such a context was evident when women with poor understanding of English language were left out from the study as a result vital component of information could have been lost. On the other hand, the sample selection was not adequate enough to guarantee large amount of data. This is evident considering that the sample of study only included women from medical healthcare centres with such conditions like diabetes and hypertension, while leaving out a vast number of women with a recent surgery or fracture to the hip, back or pelvic area and those with inflammatory arthritis.

Data presentation in the research is also well documented in various tables and graphs with the titles accurately describing the contents. The data is seemingly organized in five tables and two graphs making it easy for comparison and interpretation. For instance, table 2 provides data about LPP and participant characteristics while table 3 provides data on LPP, lifestyle and exercise habits. Data presentation by use of graphs has seemingly been made simple to understand. The text describing the data in the tables however, does not fully complement the kind of data presented. This for instance can be reflected on how there is minimal description on the data presented by the Oswestry Disability Index. A light description of data has been presented by the authors making it difficult for readers to have a clear understanding of the graph tables. While data in tables and graphs are easy to understand and analyze, there is still some discrepancies between the results in the text and those in tables. For instance, the text provides an explanation that when a review is made of the disability and pain for each subgroups, women with both LBP and PGP or PGP only depict a higher median pain scores of 7 out of 10 (Pierce et al., 2012). Such explanation texts apparently do not align with what is recorded in the tables. Readers will, therefore, have to do a more critical analysis.

Conclusion

The research has successfully proved that there is a high prevalence of lumbo-pelvic pain experienced by women during pregnancy. The strength of the research can be observed from the reliable data that was collected from the sample population. The information is perceived to be first hand data which makes it easy coming up with justifiable conclusions. This particular research can be significant towards improving the health condition of various pregnant women in regard to reducing the prevalence of lumbopelvic pain. The research has seemingly demonstrated a form of weakness especially in the texts that offer a description on the already recorded data. The texts apparently do no explore significant areas of the presented data. On the other hand, it is highly recommended that pelvic girdle or low back pain should not be tolerated nor accepted as a normal aspect during pregnancy.