Probiotics for Treatment and Prevention of Urogenital Infections in Women: A Systematic Review

Introduction Probiotics are a complementary and integrative therapy useful in the treatment and prevention of urogenital infections in women. This study extends the work of researchers who systematically investigated the scientific literature on probiotics to prevent or treat urogenital infections. Methods A systematic review was conducted to determine the efficacy of probiotics for prevention and/or treatment of urogenital infections in adult women from January 1, 2008, through June 30, 2015. We searched in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Dissertations and Theses, and Alt-HealthWatch. After removing duplicates and studies that did not meet inclusion criteria, 20 studies were reviewed. All included at least one species of Lactobacillus probiotic as an intervention for treatment or prevention of urogenital infections. Data extracted included samples, settings, study designs, intervention types, reported outcomes, follow-up periods, and results. We evaluated all randomized controlled trials for risk of bias and made quality appraisals on all studies. Results Fourteen of the studies focused on bacterial vaginosis (BV), 3 on urinary tract infections (UTIs), 2 on vulvovaginal candidiasis, and one on human papillomavirus (HPV) as identified on Papanicolaou test. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of design, intervention, and outcomes. Four studies were of good quality, 9 of fair, and 7 poor. Probiotic interventions were effective for treatment and prevention of BV, prevention of recurrences of candidiasis and UTIs, and clearing HPV lesions. No study reported significant adverse events related to the probiotic intervention. Discussion The quality of the studies in this systematic review varied. Although clinical practice recommendations were limited by the strength of evidence, probiotic interventions were effective in treatment and prevention of urogenital infections as alternatives or co-treatments. More good quality research is needed to strengthen the body of evidence needed for application by clinicians

Experiences of non-progressive and augmented labour among nulliparous women: a qualitative interview study in a Grounded Theory approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-progressive labour is the most common complication in nulliparas and is primarily treated by augmentation. Augmented labour is often terminated by instrumental delivery. Little qualitative research has addressed experiences of non-progressive and augmented deliveries. The aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the experience of non-progressive and augmented labour among nulliparas and their experience of the care they received.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A qualitative study was conducted using individual interviews. Data was collected and analysed according to the Grounded Theory method. The participants were a purposive sample of ten women. The interviews were conducted 4–15 weeks after delivery.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The women had contrasting experiences during the birth process. During labour there was a conflict between the expectation of having a natural delivery and actually having a medical delivery. The women experienced a feeling of separation between mind and body. Interacting with the midwife had a major influence on feelings of losing and regaining control. Reconciliation between the contrasting feelings during labour was achieved. The core category was named Dialectical Birth Process and comprised three categories: Balancing natural and medical delivery, Interacting, Losing and regaining control.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A dialectical process was identified in these women's experiences of non-progressive labour. The process is susceptible to interaction with the midwife; especially her support to the woman's feeling of being in control. Midwives should secure that the woman's recognition of the fact that the labour is non-progressive and augmentation is required is handled with respect for the dialectical process. Augmentation of labour should be managed as close to the course of natural labour and delivery as possible.</p

Pain relief in labour: a qualitative study to determine how to support women to make decisions about pain relief in labour

Background Engagement in decision making is a key priority of modern healthcare. Women are encouraged to make decisions about pain relief in labour in the ante-natal period based upon their expectations of what labour pain will be like. Many women find this planning difficult. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how women can be better supported in preparing for, and making, decisions during pregnancy and labour regarding pain management. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 primiparous and 10 multiparous women at 36 weeks of pregnancy and again within six weeks postnatally. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently to identify key themes. Results Three main themes emerged from the data. Firstly, during pregnancy women expressed a degree of uncertainty about the level of pain they would experience in labour and the effect of different methods of pain relief. Secondly, women reflected on how decisions had been made regarding pain management in labour and the degree to which they had felt comfortable making these decisions. Finally, women discussed their perceived levels of control, both desired and experienced, over both their bodies and the decisions they were making. Conclusion This study suggests that the current approach of antenatal preparation in the NHS, of asking women to make decisions antenatally for pain relief in labour, needs reviewing. It would be more beneficial to concentrate efforts on better informing women and on engaging them in discussions around their values, expectations and preferences and how these affect each specific choice rather than expecting them to make to make firm decisions in advance of such an unpredictable event as labour

Cost-related barriers to sexual and reproductive health care: Results from a longitudinal qualitative study in Arizona

Financial barriers can inhibit reproductive autonomy. This study examines the role of financial barriers on Arizona individuals' experiences accessing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care. We recruited individuals who may have experienced barriers when accessing SRH care in 2019 to participate in three interviews at six-to-nine-month intervals beginning in the summer of 2020. Our analyses focused on respondent strategies to mitigate cost barriers, at times linked to the changing family planning policy landscape or the role of insurance coverage in accessing SRH care. Respondents’ experiences of care seeking over time demonstrated that respondents often postpone or forgo SRH care when experiencing cost barriers, and respondents also switch care sites to access affordable care despite sometimes not having preferred providers or care sites as a result. Our findings highlight how burdensome or surprising costs can have enduring effects on whether, when, and where to seek future care

The impact of policy changes from the perspective of providers of family planning care in the US: results from a qualitative study

In recent years, there have been several state and federal policies that have disrupted access to publicly supported family planning care in the United States, including the 2019 rule that altered the federal Title X family planning program. In late 2020, we conducted in-depth interviews with health care providers from 55 facilities providing family planning care in Arizona, Iowa, and Wisconsin with the aim of learning how sites were affected by policy changes. We identified perceived effects on clinic finances, patient confidentiality, contraceptive counselling and service provision, and options counselling resulting from state and federal policy changes. Some clinics lost funding and had to pass some of the cost of services on to patients, raising new confidentiality concerns and creating new burdens on staff to carry out financial counselling with patients. Other sites had to grapple with restrictions on the pregnancy options counselling that they could provide, concentrate counselling on fertility awareness-based methods, and increase efforts to include parents/guardians in the care of adolescent patients. State and federal policies impact how publicly supported family planning care is provided, and compromise efforts to provide patient-centered care