Kubler-Ross and the Story of Job

W O ME N A N D C H I L D R E N

The effects of different maternal positions on non-stress test: an experimental study
Merlinda Alus
¸

BSN, MSc

Dokuz Eylulu University, School of Nursing, Balcova, Izmir, Turkey

Hulya Okumus
¸
¨

BSN, MSN, PhD

Dokuz Eylulu University, School of Nursing, Balcova, Izmir, Turkey

Samiye Mete

BSN, MSN, PhD

Dokuz Eylulu University, School of Nursing, Balcova, Izmir, Turkey

Serkan Guclu
¨¸ ¨

MD

Dokuz Eylul University, School of Medicine, Balcova, Izmir, Turkey

Submitted for publication: 1 June 2005
Accepted for publication: 16 December 2005

Correspondence:
Merlinda Alus
Dokuz Eylul University
School of Nursing
Balcova
Izmir
Turkey
E-mail: [e-mail]

562

¨¸ ¨
ALUS M, OKUMUS H, METE S & GUCLU S (2007)
¸
¸

Journal of Clinical Nursing 16,
562–568
The effects of different maternal positions on non-stress test: an experimental study
Aims and objectives. To determine the effects of different maternal positions on non-stress test results and the preferences of mothers for involving positions.
Background. The non-stress test (NST) has become a common tool in diagnosing fetal risks. The major problem encountered in the application of the non-stress test has been obtaining erroneous non-reactive non-stress test results when, indeed, the fetus is healthy and oxygenation is sufficient.
Study design. Experiment design with randomly assigned four positions: supine, left lateral, semi-fowler and sitting up. The sample included 408 women in a university hospital in Turkey. Women were randomly assigned to four groups in equal numbers of 102.
Data collection and analysis. Data were collected through two instruments: Demographic and Pregnancy History Form and NST tracing. Main outcome measures were percentage of reactive NST and number of minutes for reactivity in each position.
Results. There were significant (P < 0Æ05) differences among four groups. Supine
position

References: Abitbol MM, Monheit AG & Poje J (1986) Nonstress test and maternal position Adamsons K, Anderson H & Bent A (1990) Obstetrics and Gynecology, 6th edn. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia. pp. 321–329. Arhan M, Gokkaya S & Gumus M (1998) Tus ve stajlar icin obsetetri ¸ Coskun A & Karanisoglu H (1999) Dogum ve kadın hastalıkları ¸ ¸ Creary R & Resnik R (1989) Maternal – Fetal Medicine, 2nd edn. Cunningham F, MacDonald P & Leveno K (2001) Wiliam’s Obstetrics ¸ Dickason E, Schult M & Silverman B (1990) Materna –Infant Nursing Care _ Ekizer H & Eryılmaz H (1994) Intrapartum fetal monitorizasyon ve Gilbert E & Harmon J (2002) Elektronik fetal monitorizasyon. Goodlin R (1979) History of fetal monitoring. American Journal of Obstetric and Gynecology 197, 323–351. Gorrie T, Mckinney E & Murray S (1998) Foundations of Maternal Newborn Nursing Hennekens CH & Buring JE (1990) Epidemiology in Medicine. Little, Brown and Company, Boston/Toronto. pp. 260–265. _ Inanc N, Coskun A & Okumus H (1996) Dogum ve kadın Kinsella MS & Lohman G (1994) Supine hypotensive syndrome. Kostenbauder MD (1989) Maternal–Newborn Nursing. Springhouse, Philadelphia, PA Littelton LY & Engebreston JC (2002) Maternal, Neonatal and Women’s Health Nursing London ML, Landewis PW & Ball JW (2003) Maternal Newborn & Child Nursing Family Centered Care McCarthy KE & Narrigan D (1993) Is there scientific support for the use of juice to facilitate the nonstress test? Journal of Obstetric Menihan CA & Zoottoli EK (2001) Electronic Fetal Monitoring Concepts and Applications Miller WF, Hanretty KP & Callander R (2003) Resimli dogum ˇ Milsom I & Forssman L (1984) Factors influencing aortocaval compression in late pregnancy Moffatt FW & Van den Hof M (1997) Semi-fowler’s positioning, lateral tilts and their effects on nonstress test 568 Murray S, Makimey ES & Gorrie TM (2002) Fundamentals of Nathan E, Haberman S, Burgess T et al. (2000) The relationship of maternal position to the results of brief nonstress tests: a