Content uploaded by Gulbahtiyar Demirel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gulbahtiyar Demirel on Jan 08, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original Article
The Effect of Uterine and Nipple Stimulation
on Induction With Oxytocin and the Labor
Process
Gulbahtiyar Demirel, PhD •Handan Guler, PhD
Keywords
care delivery system,
evidence-based
practice,
nurse–midwifery,
obstetrics,
family–child health,
intervention
research/experimental
research
ABSTRACT
Aims: The present research study was conducted with the objective of determining the effect of
uterine and nipple stimulation on induction with oxytocin and the birth process.
Methods: A randomized controlled experiment was conducted at the maternity ward of a state
hospital located in the province of Sivas in Turkey. Three hundred ninety pregnant women
who were giving birth via vaginal delivery were randomly assigned to three groups (nipple
stimulation, uterine stimulation, control). After the birth, the groups were assessed in terms of the
birth duration and synthetic induction with oxytocin. Statistical analyses were performed through
the use of SPSS 14.0 software and included analysis of variance, Tukey’s test, Dunnett’s test,
Tamhane’s T2 test, and chi-square test.
Results: The study established statistically significant differences (p<.05) among the groups
in terms of the average durations of the first, second and third phases of the action of birth,
the status concerning delivery by C-section and the application of labor induction. The phases
of birth were shorter for the nipple stimulation group (first phase: 3.8 hours, second phase: 16
minutes, third phase: 5 minutes) and the uterine stimulation group (first phase: 4.0 hours, second
phase: 21 minutes, third phase: 6 minutes) when compared to the control group (first phase: 6.8
hours, second phase: 27 minutes, third phase: 6 minutes). In the control group, 89.2% of the
pregnant women were subject to labor induction and 8.5% to cesarean section. No women in
the nipple stimulation group or uterine stimulation group had a cesarean section.
Linking Evidence to Action: Nipple and uterine stimulation reduce the frequency of elective
labor induction, the rate of relevant complications, and support normal vaginal birth by providing
endogenous labor induction. Therefore, these interventions should be considered for pregnant
women in labor.
INTRODUCTION
Currently, induction with oxytocin is among the interventions
brought into question (Berghella, Baxter, & Chauhan, 2008).
Induction (e.g., oxytocin, prostaglandin) is utilized to induce
labor in 20%–30% of all pregnancies. This percentage range
indicates how frequently induction is used as a medical in-
tervention (Moleti, 2009). As an example, the percentage of
induction use increased from 9.5% in 1990 to 22.5% in 2006
in the United States (Martin et al., 2009). Although sufficient
data on the use of induction with oxytocin are not available
in Turkey, it is reported to be in widespread use (Demirci,
G¨
urkan, Arslan, & Eksi, 2005).
As stated by American College Obstetrician and Gynecolo-
gist (ACOG, 2008), induction of labor with synthetic oxytocin
should not be performed on the basis of the personal preference
of the doctor or the pregnant woman electively without being
associated with a specific indication (e.g., postterm pregnancy,
ablatio placenta). The studies performed in this context indicate
that elective induction without any basis on a specific indica-
tion increases the rate of complications (e.g., hyperstimulation,
C-section) in pregnant women (Reisner, Wallin, Zingheim, &
Luthy, 2009; Wilson, Effken, & Butler, 2010).
Endogenous (i.e., natural) oxytocin and synthetic oxytocin
are similar in structure (Chapman & Durham, 2010). The re-
lease of endogenous oxytocin increases the Bishop score, as
well as the ratio of spontaneous birth (Franklin & Adewde,
1993). There are nonpharmacological methods available to
stimulate the release of endogenous oxytocin. One of these
methods is nipple stimulation and the other is uterine stim-
ulation. While the literature does not feature any studies on
uterine stimulation, there are only two studies that used nipple
stimulation (Curtis, 1999; Stein, Bardeguez, Verma, & Tegani,
1990). According to Razgaitis and Lyvers (2010), both studies
worked on a limited number of small groups, and failed to
establish the reasons for nipple stimulation success or failure.
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2015; 12:5, 273–280. 273
C
2015 Sigma Theta Tau International
Uterine and Nipple Stimulation
They also did not calculate the birth phase suitable for the onset
of nipple stimulation with sufficient accuracy.
PURPOSE
Physicians, nurses, and midwives should seek new alternative
methods to reduce the frequency of elective labor induction
and the rate of relevant complications in order to facilitate a
normal vaginal birth by providing for endogenous labor induc-
tion. Therefore, it is important to determine the effect of nipple
and uterine stimulation as methods to increase the release of
endogenous oxytocin. These methods may prevent the use of
unnecessary drugs and complications of synthetic oxytocin on
the mother and the fetus, thereby contributing to the economy
of individual families and of the country. Therefore, this study
was conducted to determine the effects of uterine and nipple
stimulation on induction with oxytocin and the labor process.
METHODS
Design and Setting
This study was a randomized controlled experiment. The study
period was between February 2011 and June 2012. The research
study was conducted at the Maternity Ward at Sivas State Hos-
pital.
Sample
The number of vaginal births realized at the Maternity Ward
under Sivas State Hospital in 2010 was 3,689. The popula-
tion for this study was comprised of women who had given
birth through normal vaginal delivery on the Maternity Ward
at Sivas State Hospital in 2011. The sample size used in the
present study was calculated through a power analysis. Accord-
ing to the literature, the ratio of induction with oxytocin was
22.5% in 2006 (Moleti, 2009) while induction was required for
the action of birth in 20% to 30% of all pregnancies (Coonrod,
Bay, & Kishi, 2001). With the aim of ensuring the represen-
tation of the population, the sample volume was calculated at
a significance level of α=.05, in the confidence interval of
1−α=.95, with a risk of error of β=.20 and at a power of
1−β=.80. As a result, the total sample needed for this study
was calculated as 390.
Three hundred ninety pregnant women that satisfied the
criteria (i.e., presence of a single fetus in vertex presentation,
having a Bishop score of 6 or higher) were included in the
sample and randomly assigned to one of three groups. After
the designation of the start column in the table of random
numbers by the author, the pregnant women were randomly
assigned to three groups in such a way as to elect the first
number for the nipple stimulation group (NSG), the second
number for the uterine stimulation group (USG) and the third
number for the control group (CG). The NSG was comprised
of 130 pregnant women, the USG had 130 pregnant women,
and the CG had 130 pregnant women.
MEASUREMENTS
Data Collection and Tools
The preliminary evaluation form prepared by the author was
comprised of 11 questions regarding the criteria for inclusion in
the research study. The action of birth evaluation form prepared
by the author was composed of 12 questions regarding certain
obstetric properties of women and the action of birth itself. The
Bishop scoring system (Bishop, 1964) was utilized to evaluate
the elective induction of the action of birth.
Preliminary Evaluation Form
The preliminary evaluation form was filled out by the author
through interviews with pregnant women, reading of their files,
and provision of information from the relevant doctor. The
form was completed in approximately 5 minutes. Once the
form was complete, eligible pregnant women were designated
from amongst all pregnant women on the basis of the criteria
for inclusion in the research study and then assigned randomly
to NSG, USG, or CG.
Informed consent form 1-2-3. Women who were eligible and
had been assigned randomly to NSG, USG or CG, were given
the informed consent form prepared in accordance with their
respective groups. The literate women read and approved or
rejected the form. Illiterate women were given a read-out of
the consent form by the author and they then approved or re-
jected the form. The application of the form took approximately
4 minutes.
Action of birth evaluation form. Pregnant women who
had approved the informed consent form were accompanied
throughout the action of birth and the action of birth evaluation
form was completed by the author in 8 hours. This form was
used to evaluate such matters as the duration of the first, sec-
ond, and third phases of the action of birth, the performance
of synthetic induction and whether a C-section had been con-
ducted or not.
Bishop scoring. The evaluation of Bishop scoring was per-
formed by the doctor, the midwife and the author. Bishop scor-
ing was taken randomly from the women in nipple and uterine
stimulation and control groups once every 2 hours until the
actual birth. The doctor and the midwife were blind to study
group.
Procedure
Nipple stimulation step. In the first phase of labor, the
women in the NSG were subject to the nipple stimulation
intervention once every half an hour (in the case of contrac-
tions, nipple stimulation was performed after the contractions
stopped). At those times, one nipple of the pregnant women
was rolled and gently pulled forward with the thumb and index
finger for 2 minutes and the same procedure was then repeated
with the other nipple. The procedure was completed in approx-
imately 4–5 minutes. During the implementation phase, cervi-
cal dilation was evaluated once every 2 hours and the procedure
274 Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2015; 12:5, 273–280.
C
2015 Sigma Theta Tau International
Original Article
was terminated if a progression of 2 cm was not observed in
cervical dilation (Grobman, 2007). If such progression was ob-
served, the procedure was continued. Labor was expected to
start within 8 hours following the onset of the procedure (it is
considered normal 1-cm dilatation at 1 hour along first stage;
Boulvain, Kelly, Lohsec, Stan, & Irion, 2001; Cunningham,
Gant, & Leveno, 2005; Fraser & Cooper, 2009) and the pro-
cedure was terminated if such occurrence was not observed.
The NSG that had been taken onto the obstetric table within 8
hours following the onset of the procedure was made subject
to nipple stimulation once more before labor.
Uterine stimulation step. In the first phase of labor, the
women in the USG were subject to the intervention once ev-
ery half hour in line with the steps of stimulation. Approxi-
mately once every half an hour (in case of contractions, after
they have stopped), all fingers of one hand touched and pulled
away from the uterine tissue concurrently and rhythmically for
2–3 minutes for uterine stimulation starting from the fundus;
this stimulation was applied on the whole uterus. During the
implementation phase, cervical dilation was evaluated once ev-
ery 2 hours and the procedure was terminated if a progression
of 2 cm was not observed in cervical dilation (Simpson, James,
& Knox, 2006). If such progression was observed, the proce-
dure was continued. Labor was expected to start within 8 hours
following the onset of the procedure (it is considered normal
1-cm dilatation at 1 hour along first stage; Boulvain et al., 2001;
Cunningham et al., 2005; Fraser & Cooper, 2009) and the pro-
cedure was terminated if such occurrence was not observed.
The USG that had been taken onto the obstetric table within 8
hours following the onset of the procedure was made subject
to uterine stimulation once more before labor (Figure 1).
Statistical Analysis
Statistical evaluations for the research study were performed
through the use of SPSS 14.0 software package (SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL, USA). The statistical evaluations entailed the Lev-
ene test, the Variance analysis (e.g., age, average number of past
pregnancies and births, average Bishop scores, average-phase
durations of the action of birth), Tukey’s test, the Dunnett’s
test, the Tamhane’s T2 test (Bishop score, phase durations of
the action of birth), the chi-square test (application of synthetic
induction or C-section). Assumption of significance as p<.05
in statistical analyses.
Ethical Considerations
The study was carried out in accordance with the principles
of the Helsinki Declaration. Written permission had been ob-
tained from the ethics board (dated 25.01.2011 and No. 11/41)
and from the institution where the study was to be conducted
(dated 02.02.2011 and No.B.104.˙
ISM.4.58.00.09-773/43) be-
fore actual implementation. Only women that had approved
the informed consent form were included in the research
study. The privacy of the pregnant women was duly maintained
during both the completion of the forms and the implementa-
tion of the research study.
Findings
The women in the groups were similar in terms of age, number
of past pregnancies, and number of past births (p>.05). The
mean age of the women was in the range of 26–27 years, the
number of past pregnancies was 1.9 ±1.0 and the number of
past births was 0.9 ±1.0.
No statistically significant difference existed among the
groups in terms of their preapplication average Bishop scores
(p>.05). The difference among the average Bishop scores of
the groups on the second, fourth and sixth hour of application
was found to be statistically significant (p<.05). The pre-
application average Bishop score in the NSG was 9, but this
figure increased to 13 in the sixth hour. The average Bishop
score in the USG was 8.9 before the application, but increased
to 13 in the sixth hour, as well. On the other hand, the average
Bishop score in the CG was 8.9 before the application, but
increased to 11.5 in the sixth hour (Table 1).
The difference among the groups in terms of the average
durations of the first, second, and third phases of the action
of birth was found to be statistically significant (p<.05). The
average duration of the first phase of labor was 3.8 hours in
the NSG and 4.0 hours in the USG, but the average of this
duration increased to 6.8 in the CG. The shortest duration of
second phase was observed in the NSG with 16 minutes. On the
other hand, the average duration of this phase was 21 minutes
in the USG and 27 minutes in the CG. In placental phase (the
third phase), the birth of the placenta occurred in similar times
in the USG (6.3 minutes) and in the CG (6.9 minutes), whereas
the birth of the placenta occurred in a shorter period of time in
the NSG (5.3 minutes; Table 2).
The difference between primipara and multipara women in
terms of the synthetic induction status was found to be statis-
tically significant (p<.05). In addition, as can be seen in the
table, the difference among the groups in terms of the synthetic
induction status of women is also statistically significant (p<
.05). Synthetic induction was applied to 6.9% of the NSG and
12.3% of the USG, while this percentage is 89.2 in the CG.
The group with the lowest percentage of synthetic induction in
both primiparous and multiparous women is the NSG (9.2%
and 4.6%, respectively; Table 3).
The difference among the groups in terms of the C-section
application was found to be statistically significant (p<.05).
Whereas no women in the NSG or the USG underwent
C-section, 8.5% of the CG had a C-section (Table 4).
DISCUSSION
Cervical status is the most important success indicator of labor
induction. A rigid and immature cervix increases the possi-
bility of a failed induction or a lengthy and difficult birth, as
well as the rate of C-section and maternal and fetal morbid-
ity (Cunningham et al., 2005). Therefore, cervical and fetal
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2015; 12:5, 273–280. 275
C
2015 Sigma Theta Tau International
Uterine and Nipple Stimulation
Pregnant women
Appropriate criteria
NSG CGUSG
Application
(every 30 min, a
4-5 min)
Application
(every 30 min,
a 2-3 min)
None
applications
Cervical
dilatation (every
2 hours)
Cervical
dilatation
(every 2 hours)
Cervical
dilatation
(every 2 hours)
2 hours 2
cm in
progress
2 hours 2
cm in
progress
Birth was
achieved within 8
hours after the
application start
Evaluated of birth time and frequency applied synthetic oxytocin
2 cm in 2
hours no
progress
2 cm in 2
hours no
progress
Birth was
achieved within
8 hours after the
application start
Cervical
dilatation
yes / no
Application
is continued
Application
is
terminated
Application
is continued
Application
is
terminated
Pregnant
women are
considered
Figure 1. A flow chart of the study. Uterine and nipple stimulation.
status must be assessed before deciding upon any induction
method. The most well-known method for cervical assessment
is Bishop scoring. Boulvain et al. (2001) examined the correla-
tion between cervical scores and the success and failure rates of
induction by utilizing Bishop’s scoring method. They revealed
that pregnant women with a Bishop score of 9 or higher can
be induced to give birth in less than 4 hours (Boulvain et al.,
2001). In our study, 89.2% of women with a preapplication
average Bishop score close to 9 (Table 1) in the control group
were made subject to synthetic induction (Table 3), but approx-
imately 15% of the women in this group (19 women) gave birth
in the first 6 hours (Table 1). On the other hand, it is quite
striking that all women in the NSG and USG that had been
made subject to nipple and uterine stimulation for the release
of endogenous oxytocin and that had preapplication average
Bishop scores of 9 or close to 9 gave birth within 6 hours (p
<.05; Table 1). In line with these findings, it can be consid-
ered that nipple and uterine stimulation improves the release
of endogenous oxytocin and leads to a higher Bishop score.
The first phase of the action of birth is 12–13 hours in nul-
lipara and 6–8 hours in multipara on average (Cunningham
et al., 2005). One of the most important effects of oxytocin on
labor is shortening the duration of labor (Demirci et al., 2005).
Studies in relevant literature indicate that oxytocin shortens the
duration of labor (De Miranda, Van Der Bom, Bonsel, Bleker,
& Rosendaal, 2006; D¨
undar et al., 2006). The duration of the
first phase of labor was found to be 7 hours on average in a
synthetic oxytocin group in a study performed on 56 pregnant
women (De Miranda et al., 2006). The present study estab-
lished the average duration of the first phase as 3.8 hours in
the NSG and as 4 hours in the USG, which were both en-
dogenous oxytocin stimulation groups. On the other hand, this
duration was 6.8 hours on average in the control group and the
difference among the groups in terms of the average durations
of the first phase of the action of birth was found to be statis-
tically significant (p<.05; Table 2). The majority of women
in the CG (89.2%; Table 3) were subject to synthetic oxytocin
application in the latent phase of the first stage of labor and
this application was terminated generally toward the end of the
transition phase. On the basis of these data, it is possible to
state that nipple or uterine stimulation triggers the release of
endogenous oxytocin and is more effective in shortening the
duration of the first phase of the action of birth when compared
to synthetic oxytocin. Curtis (1999) found a statistically signifi-
cant difference between the oxytocin and NSG (on 79 women),
but Stein et al. (1990) could not establish a statistically signifi-
cant difference between stimulation groups (on 84 women) in
terms of the first-phase duration of the action of birth.
276 Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2015; 12:5, 273–280.
C
2015 Sigma Theta Tau International
Original Article
Table 1. Average Bishop Scores of Women Before and During the Procedure
Average Bishop scores
NSG USG CG
n n n
Time of Bishop score evaluation ¯x±s ¯x±s ¯x±sF p
1Before the procedure 130 130 130
9.0 ±0.8 8.9 ±0.8 8.9 ±0.8 0.816 .443
2At the second hour of the procedure 130 130 130
11.0 ±1.1a10.8 ±1.1b9.6 ±0.9c64.072 .001
3At the fourth hour of the procedure 121 114 130
12.7 ±0.5a12.7 ±0.5b10.7 ±1.3c202.962 .001
4At the sixth hour of the procedure 27 29 111
13.0 ±0.0a13.0 ±0.0b11.5 ±1.2c41.193 .001
At the 8th hour of the procedure 85
– – 12.0 ±1.2 – –
Difference among the hours 534.623 .001
Note.
2aAgainst Group 2,
p
=.376.
2bAgainst Group 3,
p
=.001.
3cAgainst Group 1,
p
=.001.
4aAgainst Group 2,
p
=1.00.
4bAgainst Group 3,
p
=.001.
1dAgainst the fourth hour of application,
p
=.001.
2dAgainst the fourth hour of application,
p
=.001.
3dAgainst the sixth hour of application,
p
=.99.
2cAgainst Group 1,
p
=.001.
3aAgainst Group 2,
p
=.947.
3bAgainst Group 3,
p
=.001.
4cAgainst Group 1,
p
=.001.
1dAgainst the second hour of application,
p
=.001.
1dAgainst the sixth hour of application,
p
=.001.
2dAgainst the sixth hour of application,
p
=.001.
The second phase takes 30 minutes to 2 hours in prim-
ipara and 5–30 minutes in multiparae after cervical dilation
(Cunningham et al., 2005). A prolonged second phase of la-
bor could lead to multiple interventions and affect the cost
(Hofmeyr, 2005). Studies in the relevant literature point out
that oxytocin also shortens the second-phase duration of the
action of birth (Curtis, 1999; Schiessi et al., 2005). The aver-
age duration of the second phase of labor was established as
70 minutes by Schiessi et al. (2005). In this study, the average
second-phase duration of the action of birth was 16 minutes in
the NSG, 21 minutes in the USG and 27 minutes in the CG
(p<.05; Table 2). The second phase of labor was specifically
shorter in the NSG. This finding leads to the consideration that
nipple stimulation is more effective in stimulating the release
of oxytocin.
The third phase continues for about 5–30 minutes (Cun-
ningham et al., 2005). Oxytocin is influential on the third-phase
duration of labor. The shortest time to placental birth was ob-
served in the NSG (5 minutes) in the present study (Table 2).
This situation gives way to the consideration that nipple stim-
ulation is also more effective in shortening the third-phase
duration of the action of birth. Moreover, this can, in turn,
make us consider that the effects of the nipple stimulations
performed during the first and second phases of the action of
birth for the release of endogenous oxytocin extend also to the
third phase.
The use of intravenous oxytocin is the most commonly em-
ployed method for labor induction (Cunningham et al., 2005).
In our country, it is known to be in frequent use despite the
lack of data on the frequency of labor induction. Demirci et al.
(2005) established that 16% of doctors utilize elective labor in-
duction to accelerate an action of labor that is otherwise moving
on the normal course. In our study, it is striking that the ap-
plication of synthetic induction was at a very low percentage in
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2015; 12:5, 273–280. 277
C
2015 Sigma Theta Tau International
Uterine and Nipple Stimulation
Table 2. Average Durations of Birth Phases
Average duration of the action of birth
NSG USG CG
n=121 n=114 n=119
Phases of the action of birth ¯x±s ¯x±s ¯x±sF p
First phase (hour) 3.8 ±39.9 4.0 ±51.3 6.8 ±118.9 195.593 .001
Second phase (minute) 16.3 ±10.8 21.6 ±14.1 27.3 ±16.1 18.932 .001
Third phase (minute) 5.3 ±1.9 6.3 ±2.3 6.9 ±2.6 14.389 .001
Table 3. Breakdown of Synthetic Induction Applica-
tion Status per Parity and Group of Women
Synthetic induction application
Applied Not applied
Parity Groups n%n%χ²/p
Primipara NSG 69.2 59 90.8
USG 812.3 57 87.7 107.150/.001
CG 60 92.3 57.7
Multipara NSG 34.6 62 95.4
USG 812.3 57 87.7 132.407/.001
CG 56 86.2 9 13.8
Table 4. Breakdown of C-Section Application on
Women
C-Section
Applied Not applied
Groups n%n%
NSG 0 0 130 100
USG 0 0 130 100
CG 11 8.5 119 91.5
Note.
χ²=22.639;
p
=.001.
the NSG and USG (6.9%, 12.3%), whereas the majority of the
control group were made subject to induction (89.2%), (p<
.05; Table 3). The group with the lowest rate of synthetic induc-
tion in both primiparae and multiparae was the NSG (9.2%,
4.6%). These findings lead us to consider that nipple and uter-
ine stimulation on women in the NSG and USG is effective in
providing the release of endogenous oxytocin and reduces the
need for the use of synthetic oxytocin.
The literature reported the percentage of clinical failure
in induction with oxytocin in the action of birth as 8%–50%
(De Miranda et al., 2006; Kashanian, Akbarian, Baradaran,
& Samiee, 2006). This failure leads to a higher risk of ma-
ternal and fetal morbidity and mortality and a higher risk of
C-section (Wilson et al., 2010). Relevant studies report that the
rate of spontaneous vaginal birth is 30%–53% (Kashanian et al.,
2006) and the rate of C-section is 24%–56% (Boulvain et al.,
2001; Kashanian et al., 2006) in synthetic oxytocin groups. The
studies reveal that induction with oxytocin increase the rate
of C-section application (Clark et al., 2009; Grobman, 2007;
Hofmeyr, 2005; Sakae, Freitas, & d’Orsi, 2009). Contrary to
this high rate, no C-section procedure was performed in the
NSG and USG after endogenous oxytocin application in our
study. The percentage of C-sections in the CG where induc-
tion was performed on the majority of women (89.2%) was
established to be 8.5 (Table 4). This result shows us that the
release of oxytocin can be improved and delivery by C-section
reduced through the use of nonpharmacological methods such
as nipple stimulation or uterine stimulation.
In line with these results, it is suggested that nipple stim-
ulation and uterine stimulation are effective in improving the
release of endogenous oxytocin, increasing the Bishop score
and accelerating the phases of the action of birth, decreasing
synthetic induction and rate of cesarean section. Therefore, it
is recommended that similar studies should be conducted on
different sample populations.
LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION
rNipple and uterine stimulation allow for the re-
duction in frequency of elective labor induction
and the rate of relevant complications.
278 Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2015; 12:5, 273–280.
C
2015 Sigma Theta Tau International
Original Article
rThese methods allow normal vaginal birth by pro-
viding endogenous labor induction.
rThese methods can increase the Bishop score and
accelerate the phases of labor.
rThese methods can reduce the synthetic induction
of labor and rate of cesarean section.
LIMITATIONS
The study is a single blinded study. The doctor and midwives
were not aware of which pregnant women were assigned to
the various groups. The application was made by researchers
in this study. However, it was our desire to conduct a double-
blind study in which the researchers would not know the group
assignment of the pregnant women.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the results of our study, the Bishop scores of the
nipple and uterine stimulation groups increased substantially
more than in the control group. The phases of the action of
birth had a shorter duration of time in the nipple and uter-
ine stimulation groups than in the control group. The rate
of synthetic induction was very low in the nipple and uter-
ine stimulation groups, but very high in the control group.
The application of synthetic induction was observed to be at
the highest level (especially slightly higher in primiparae) in
the control group. No C-section procedure was performed in
the nipple and uterine stimulation groups and a small num-
ber of C-section procedures was required in the control group.
WVN
Author information
Gulbahtiyar Demirel, Assistant Professor, Department of Mid-
wifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Cumhuriyet University,
Sivas, Turkey; Handan Guler, Assistant Professor, Department
of Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Cumhuriyet Univer-
sity, Sivas, Turkey.
This study was supported by the Commission for Scientific
Research Projects of Cumhuriyet University as the doctorate
dissertation project No. SBF-017.
Address correspondence to Dr. Gulbahtiyar Demirel,
Department of Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sci-
ences, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey; gulbahti-
yar_doganer@hotmail.com
Accepted 19 August 2015
Copyright C
2015, Sigma Theta Tau International
References
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2008).
Ekternal cephalic version. Practice Bulletin. Washington, DC:
Author.
Berghella, V., Baxter, J. K., & Chauhan, S. P. (2008). Evidence-
based labor and delivery management. American Journal of Ob-
stetrics & Gynecology,199(5), 445–454.
Bishop, E. H. (1964). Pelvic Scoring for Elective Induction. Obstet-
rics & Gynecology 24(2): 266–268. PMID: 14199536.
Boulvain, M., Kelly, A., Lohsec, C., Stan, C., & Irion, O. (2001).
Mechanical methods for induction of labor. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews,4, Art. no.: CD001233. doi:10.1002/14651858.
Chapman, L., & Durham, F. R. (2010). Labor interventions. In
Maternal–newborn nursing (pp. 203–211). Philadelphia, PA: F.A.
Davis Company.
Clark, S. L., Miller, D. D., Belfort, M. A., Dildy, G. A., Frye, D. K.,
& Meyers, J. A. (2009). Neonatal and maternal outcomes asso-
ciated with elective term delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics
and Gynecology,200(2), 156.
Coonrod, D. V., Bay, R. C., & Kishi, G. Y. (2001). The epidemiology
of labor induction: Arizona. American Journal of Obstetrics &
Gynecology,184(4), 780–782.
Cunningham, F. G., Gant, N. F., Leveno, K. J., Gilstrap, L.C.,
Hauth, J.C., & Wenstrom, K.D. (Eds.), (2005). Williams Ob-
stetrics (21st ed.). Istanbul, Turkey: Nobel Medical Publishing.
Curtis, P. (1999). Breast stimulation to augment labor: History,
mystery and culture. Birth,26, 123–126.
De Miranda, E., Van Der Bom, J. G., Bonsel, G. J., Bleker, O. P., &
Rosendaal, F. R. (2006). Membrane sweeping and prevention
of post-term pregnancy in low-risk pregnancies: A randomised
controlled trial. International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
113(4), 402–408.
Demirci, N., G¨
urkan, ¨
O., Arslan, H., & Eksi, Z. (2005). The role of
doctors, midwives and nurses in oxytocin administration. Jour-
nal of Perinatalogy,13(3), 129–137.
D¨
undar, ¨
O., T¨
ut¨
unc¨
u, L., M¨
ungen,E.,Muhcu,M.,Bodur,S.,&
Yerg¨
ok, Y. Z. (2006). Comparison of intravaginal misoprostol
and oxytocin infusion with oxytocin infusion in induction of
labour. Clinics of Turkey J Gynecol Obst,16, 239–245.
Franklin, O., & Adewde, I. F. (1993). Cervical ripening and induc-
tion of labor by breast stimulation. African Journal of Medical
Sciences,22(4), 81–85.
Fraser, D. M., & Cooper, M. A. (2009). Myles textbook for midwives
(15th ed.). Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.
Grobman, W. A. (2007). Elective induction: When? Ever? Clinical
Obstetrics and Gynecology,50(2), 537–546.
Hofmeyr, G. J. (2005). Evidence-based intrapartum care: Best prac-
tice and research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology,19(1), 103–
115.
Kashanian, M., Akbarian, A., Baradaran, H., & Samiee, M.
M. (2006). Effect of membrane sweeping at term preg-
nancy on duration of pregnancy and labor induction: A ran-
domized trial. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation,62(1),
41–44.
Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Sutton, T. D., Ventura, S. J., Men-
acker, F., Kirmeyer, S., & Mathews, T. J. (2009). Births: Final data
for 2006, national vital statistics reports. Hyattsville, MD: National
Center for Health Statistics.
Moleti, C. A. (2009). Trends and controversies in labor in-
duction. American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing,34(1),
40–47.
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2015; 12:5, 273–280. 279
C
2015 Sigma Theta Tau International
Uterine and Nipple Stimulation
Razgaitis, E. J., & Lyvers, A. N. (2010). Management of protracted
active labor with nipple stimulation: A viable tool for midwives?
Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health,55(1), 65–69.
Reisner, D. P., Wallin, T. K., Zingheim, R. W., & Luthy, D. A.
(2009). Reduction of elective inductions in a large community
hospital. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,200(6),
674.
Sakae, T. M., Freitas, P. F., & d’Orsi, E. (2009). Factors associated
with cesarean section rates in a university hospital. Revista de
Sa´
ude P´
ublica,43(3), 472–480.
Schiessi,B.,Janni,W.,Jundt,K.,Rammel,G.,Peschers,U.,&
Kainer, F. (2005). Obstetrical parameters influencing the du-
ration of the second stage of labor. European Journal of Obstet-
rics & Gynecology andReproductive Biology,118(1), 17–20.
Simpson, K. R., James, D. C., & Knox, G. E. (2006). Nurse-
physician communication during labor and birth: Implications
for patient safety. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal
Nursing,35, 547–556.
Stein, J. L., Bardeguez, A. D., Verma, U. L., & Tegani, N. (1990).
Nipple stimulation for labor augmentation. Journal of Reproduc-
tive Medicine,35, 710–714.
Wilson, B. L., Effken, J., & Butler, J. R. (2010). The relationship
between section and labor induction. Journal of Nursing Scholar-
ship,42(2), 130–138.
doi 10.1111/wvn.12116
WVN 2015;12:273–280
280 Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2015; 12:5, 273–280.
C
2015 Sigma Theta Tau International
