Women Take 'Two Hours Longer To Give Birth Now Than 50 years Ago'

The Huffington Post UK  |  By Posted: 2/04/2012 14:47 Updated: 2/04/2012 15:45

Women Take Longer To Give Birth
Women Take Two Hours Longer To Give Birth Now Than 50 Years Ago

Pregnant women are spending more time in labour now than 50 years ago, a recent study has discovered.

The research by the National Institutes of Health analysed nearly 140,000 births and compared data on deliveries in the early 1960s up until the early 2000s.

Nearly 40,000 deliveries were investigated between 1959 and 1966, and a further 100,000 births between 2002 and 2008.

They discovered that the early stages of labour (from when the cervix begins to dilate) lasts 2.6 hours longer for modern, first-time mothers compared to their counterparts in the 1960s.

Women who had previously given birth had gone through the early stages of labour two hours longer than those in the 1960s.

Researchers claim that the labour time has changed because of differences in delivery room practices.

For example, the use of epidural anesthesia (the injection of pain killer into the spinal fluid) has increased from 4% in the 1960s to more than 50% of recent births. Anesthesia is known to increase labour times.

The study also focused on how often the hormone oxytocin is given to women in labour. Oxytocin is administered to induce contractions or to speed them up when they slow down and is given to 31% of modern day women compared to 12% of pregnant women in the 1960s.

Although oxytocin is effectively designed to speed up the labour process, research suggests that it makes little, or no, difference to the length of time women spend in labour.

Another difference in birth practices that the study noted included the faded popularity of episiotomy (where a surgical incision is made to enlarge the vaginal opening to make way for the baby if labour slows down). This was usually followed by the use of forceps (a clamp-type instrument that swiftly extracts the baby from the birth canal).

However, during modern births, medical intervention is more complicated and usually includes oxytocin administration or a caesarean delivery, which involves surgically removing the baby from the womb.

Practices aside, researchers also highlighted that pregnant women weigh more than those in the 1960s. Modern pregnant women have a body mass index (BMI) of 24.9 compared to 23 for the earlier generation. Obesity during pregnancy increases the risk of complication during the birth.

Researchers concluded that modern delivery practices needed to be re-evaluated.

These findings were published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Loading Slideshow...
  • Frozen Embryos 'More Successful Than Fresh' For IVF Preganancies

    Frozen embryos are more likely to produce successful, complication-free IVF pregnancies than those that are fresh, research suggests. Using stored embryos cuts the risk of bleeding in pregnancy, premature birth, and giving birth to an underweight baby by almost a third, a study has found. The risk of a baby dying at around the time of birth is also reduced by about a fifth. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/04/health-frozen-embryos-boost-ivf_n_1853377.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-lifestyle" target="_hplink">Read the full story here.</a>

  • Frozen Embryo IVF Babies 'Healthier And Heavier'

    IVF babies born from frozen embryos are heavier and healthier than those born from fresh embryos, new fertility research has discovered. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/06/frozen-embryo-ivf-babies-healthier_n_1186664.html" target="_hplink"><strong>Read the full story here</strong></a>.

  • Three Parent IVF

    Babies with three biological parents could soon be a reality after a new £6m laboratory has been given the go ahead and funding to develop a unique IVF technique which uses DNA from a third party. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/20/three-parent-ivf-may-be-legal_n_1218681.html" target="_hplink"><strong>Read the full story here</strong></a>.

  • Twins Beat The Odds To Be Born Five Years Apart

    Reception class pupil Reuben Blake went back to school today, but his twin sister will have to wait another five years until she is old enough. That is because, despite the fact the brother and sister were conceived from the same batch of embryos, they were born five years apart to parents Simon and Jody Blake. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/04/twins-born-five-years-apart-floren-simon-blake_n_1182717.html" target="_hplink"><strong>Read the full story here</strong></a>.

  • Lab-Grown Sperm - Coming Soon?

    Scientists have made a breakthrough that could enable infertile men to father children with their own sperm. Researchers at Muenster University in Germany grew mouse sperm in a laboratory and believe the same technique could be used with human sperm. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/03/sperm-grown-in-laboratory_n_1180695.html" target="_hplink"><strong>Read the full story here</strong></a>.

  • Scientists Uncover Female 'Fertility Switch'

    Scientists from the Imperial College London have discovered a 'fertility switch' that could help treat infertility and miscarriage in the future. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/17/new-hope-for-women-struggling-to-conceive_n_1015554.html" target="_hplink"><strong>Read the full story here</strong></a>.

  • Women Who Donate Eggs For IVF Will Have Payments Tripled

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority have announced today that women who donate their eggs to infertile couples, will be rewarded an extra £500 in costs. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/19/women-will-receive-triple-the-payment-for-egg-donation_n_1019830.html" target="_hplink"><strong>Read the full story here</strong></a>.

  • Baby Born Using 25-Year-Old Sperm

    A baby girl was born after being conceived using sperm that has been kept frozen for 25 years - the longest that sperm has been kept frozen and then successfully used for IVF in the UK. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/06/baby-conceived-by-oldest-frozen-sperm_n_1257653.html" target="_hplink"><strong>Read the full story here</strong></a>.

FOLLOW UK LIFESTYLE

Pregnant women are spending more time in labour now than 50 years ago, a recent study has discovered. The research by the National Institutes of Health analysed nearly 140,000 births and compared d...
Pregnant women are spending more time in labour now than 50 years ago, a recent study has discovered. The research by the National Institutes of Health analysed nearly 140,000 births and compared d...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 40
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
16:08 on 18/02/2013
I read this article and can't help but think--these people have no clue whatsoever why exactly does it take 2 hours more nowadays. The most unconvincing list of arguments.
16:03 on 18/02/2013
A body mass index of 24.9 is not obese. It's not even overweight.
14:26 on 10/04/2012
I truly and honestly feel for the women out there. Being a man myself I can't begin to understand the trauma that child birth can cause however I wouldn't be surprised if the duration of labour times has increased due to the number of fat people out these these days. It causes all sorts of health issues so I'd imagine giving birth while your carrying to much junk in your trunk is definitely not the best way to get the job done. On another note if I were a woman and a Dr. tried to perform Episiotomy on me I'd probably whip out my epidural and start lunging at him/her. Damn that just sounds wrong, invasive and potentially quite painful not to mention the risks involved.
10:34 on 10/04/2012
"Popularity" of episiotomy? Not with the women who had to under go one and then faced being stitched up by a student deemed to need stitching practice. It was barbaric and it left some women with very painful scars afterwards. Long may it fade - I'd have bitten anyone who tried it on me.
10:33 on 10/04/2012
The conclusion that the longer time is due to modern delivery room practices is demonstrably false. Pregnaant women aren't even admited to the maternity units until labour is well on, so it simply cannot be the case that what goes on in the delivery room causes" the early stages of labour (from when the cervix begins to dilate) lasts 2.6 hours longer for modern, first-time mothers compared to their counterparts in the 1960s".

Oxytocin is not given to women who are already in labour until their labour is already well advanced, and taking longer than expected. It is also given to induce labour that is overdue of course.

So obviously, while the bare fact that labour takes longer these days may be proven, the reason given is plainly wrong.

I suspect the weight issue is more likely. Research should focus on delivery time versus mothers' weight. It may be that that is a red herring too.
15:50 on 25/05/2012
Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. There are three stages of labour - 1st, 2nd and 3rd. The first stage is what most people think of as 'pretty much the whole thing', as it is usually by far the longest part, but in reality is only the very beginning of the childbirth process. That is what they are referring to here, when they talk about the early stages. That is everything between onset and bearing down/pushing, in a nutshell.

Did you really think they meant just the very beginning? How on earth do you think they would measure that? They don't even start officially timing the labour until the medical care begins - and this is an analysis of official delivery data, not a survey of women on how long they felt their labours were.

What on earth led you to conclude that the "weight issue" is the most likely cause? As a childbirth professional I'd be really interested to hear your explanation - at a biological level - of why this, over the great list of other highly compelling factors that have a very clear and remarkable effect upon the hormonal makeup of a labouring woman, you have decided is the single biggest factor in the length of labours today. Assuming you understand how the birthing body works, of course, and what actually goes on inside a woman when her labour slows down or speeds up?
16:18 on 25/05/2012
Where to begin...

1. The part of labour that I am commenting on is the part referred to in the article - which I quoted.

2. Why did you conclude that I had "concluded" that weight is the most likely cause? My words were clear: "I suspect". A hypothesis requiring research (you will note I suggested that research focussed on that issue) is not a conclusion. Conclusions follow research, they don't precede it. I did not "concliude" that weight was the issue, I hypothesised it.

3. Given that most women don't get into the maternity unit until several hours after labour has begun, it is positively bats to measure the duration of labour as commencing from when medical intervention began. By that argument a woman who gives birth in a taxi on the way to hospital had a labour duration of 0 hours, 0 minutes and 0 seconds. As achildbirth professional, you must surely be aware that labour begins long, LONG before a midwife or obstetrician pushes the button on the stopwatch.
16:25 on 25/05/2012
Now - why would I hypothesise that weight is an issue?

Take the starting point that something has changed in 50 years, in order that the times of labour have changed.

Possibilities:
a) birth position change. I discount that. A lot of childbirth professionals now take the view that "flat on your back" isn't the best way to give birth necessarily, and many more women adopt less conventional positions these days.

b) oxytocin. Discounted in the article. Besides - it's intended to speed up labour, not slow it down.

c) lousy midwives. I discount that. Knowledge has increased, not decreased.

d) lousy obstetricians. Ditto.

e) dodgy metrics. Possible. Possible.

f) lazy good for nothing women who don't push hard enough. Nope - I don't buy that.

g) a change in the physical make-up of women. Well it can't be genetic - creatures don't mutate that quickly in whole populations. Is there any other obvious difference in women (and men for that matter) in the last 50 years?Well they've all got a lot fatter. Could be a useful avenue of research there. BMI vs labour times.
06:41 on 10/04/2012
in that case women should pay a birth tax
13:51 on 10/04/2012
I assume then that men are going to pay a 'conception tax', as a woman cannot get pregnant by herself?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
14:52 on 03/04/2012
Woman should give birth in a squatting positon to both help open up the birth canal and allow gravity to work - but oh no - flat on yer back with yer feet in the air for no other reason than to make it easier for the medical staff assisting with the delivery. So in practice most babies are born fighting their way uphill before they see the light of day.
cantabria
my default position is wrong
06:42 on 10/04/2012
Yes but mediacal staff are traditionally men. personally I think all this giving birth should be eliminted anyway, disgusting habit. Babies should be designed in test tubes, reared in specialist baby rearing units and given back to their parents at an appropriate time (which may never arise).Why anyone would want to destroy their body in this way in the name of nature....
Kraptonfactor
They're coming to take me away ha ha, hee hee, ho
09:00 on 10/04/2012
cantabria, my body was in better nick following the birth of my second baby than it was before I was expecting my first. There is no reason why childbirth should damage one's body.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
10:29 on 10/04/2012
@cantabria, can you arrrange for me to have a couple, fully qualified and already out working, preferably in the higher tax bracket ;)
Kraptonfactor
They're coming to take me away ha ha, hee hee, ho
08:58 on 10/04/2012
Absolutely right, minimemo. All my instincts were telling me I should be in that position to give birth but was confined to bed lying on my back (which gives me a lot of pain anyway) and told to push even though I wasn't having contractions! I got wise the second time around and only pushed when I was ready, the result was an easy delivery that didn't even require stitches. I was home 6 hours later doing the ironing whereas with my first I couldn't even sit down for two months.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lorine616
13:41 on 03/04/2012
They make you stay in bed when your water breaks....Not letting you walk around like they used to....I feel that women should let gravity work...stand as long as possible..Unfortunately for me..my water breaking was the first signs of my labor..They put me in bed..The first time I stayed on my side like they said...BAD idea....back labor...The second time....they wouldnt let me out of bed but I made sure I sat all the way up with my lags dangling off the sides...Even though i couldnt walk..That was much better..!
09:05 on 10/04/2012
Totally agree lorine, i had my first many years ago, i wa strapped to the bed not allowed off, was persueded to have an epidural..it was awful, for my second n third i was in control, i walked around, squatted , whatever made me comfotable. They should listen to mothers more !
10:00 on 03/04/2012
The main reson it did not take so long to give birth 50 years ago is that women then were more physically active and not so namby-pamby.
06:18 on 03/04/2012
What a load of codswollop. They want you to believe it takes longer so they can send you home as they are either full up or don't have enough midwives. So you end up having anywhere else than in hospital. LOL!
09:45 on 10/04/2012
Joe Joe P- Next time you need a poo.... go and lay down to do it...see how hard that is!!!
11:43 on 10/04/2012
LOL! I think you misread my comment. Joe Joe P might be in disguise and might be a woman who has experienced natural birth because the hospital failed to believe that it was coming quickly and refused to go home which meant it got delivered in a hospital and not in a car. Never assume.
00:01 on 03/04/2012
They're all working full time nowadays and can't afford the time off so delay it as much as possible. My wife was still taking work calls as the baby's head crowned!!!!!
Kraptonfactor
They're coming to take me away ha ha, hee hee, ho
09:03 on 10/04/2012
I held off calling the ambulance because I wanted to watch the end of the midnight movie.
23:42 on 02/04/2012
How would they know this. Hospitals wouldn't keep records of the time individual mothers were in labour 50 years ago.What does appear to happen is women being told they are in the very early stages of labour, sending them home only to be rushed back into hospital soon after in an advanced stage of labour.Some women have short labours, some in between, and some long. Nothing is going to change that.
19:26 on 02/04/2012
Who cares....everyone is different. Lets please not turn this into a competition like the "My body snapped back within 5 minutes of having my baby"...UGH Who cares..I had 5 kids and spit em out within 15 minutes each but brag about it?...No WHO CARES..What might happen to one woman will most likely not be for another. Spare us the smoke screens that cover and hide the REAL news.
Kraptonfactor
They're coming to take me away ha ha, hee hee, ho
09:08 on 10/04/2012
You give birth to five kids in 75 minutes? FedTheFckUp, you must have a chuff like a wizard's sleeve! :-)
photo
jf12
When I saw her I marveled greatly.
15:20 on 02/04/2012
Two possible reasons. The greatly increased use of the non-estrogen Pill. Over treatment of Braxton Hicks and other things.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nicholspongo
19:46 on 02/04/2012
Or the fact that due to finances etc.. women are delaying childbirth till much later in life, therefore maybe they are not as fit as thier younger sisters of yesteryear.
photo
jf12
When I saw her I marveled greatly.
20:06 on 02/04/2012
These are not first-time babies in the study, and I recall earlier studies that showed older women had babies quicker.