La satisfacción de las mujeres con el manejo de su parto en roturas prematuras de membranas

  1. Felipe Fernández Méndez
  2. Maria Mercedes Novo Muñoz
  3. José Ángel Rodríguez Gómez
  4. José Manuel Díaz González
  5. Armando Aguirre Jaime
ENE Revista de Enfermería

ISSN: 1988-348X

Year of publication: 2019

Issue: 13

Pages: 9

Type: Article

More publications in: ENE Revista de Enfermería


Índice Dialnet de Revistas

  • Year 2019
  • Journal Impact: 0.320
  • Field: ENFERMERÍA Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 3/42


Women's satisfaction with the management of their birth in premature ruptures of membranes. Premature rupture of membranes is a common situation among reasons for admission and active management of labor. Knowing satisfaction of the women after the care received in the care of their birth and birth process allows them to understand their experience and improve the evidence in the management of the end of pregnancies. The objective of the study was to determine the level of satisfaction of women according to the management of labor in premature rupture of membranes. The design was descriptive of cross section in two hospitals of the third level of Tenerife. The 598 women included in the study voluntarily self-completed the "Mackey Childbirth Satisfaction Rating Scale" validated in Spanish. Variables were collected by means of the subsequent interview and review of the clinical history before hospital discharge. Satisfaction scores were compared using nonparametric tests with a significance level p <0.05 by statistical package. No differences were found in the satisfaction of women with premature rupture of membranes subjected to an active management through the different methods of induction, as well as between spontaneous and active management of labor. Monitoring and improving the quality of care for obstetric interventions involves incorporating the perspective of women through their satisfaction. Adapting the childbirth model to the needs of mothers, newborns and their families.

Bibliographic References

  • 1. Pelechano V, Matud M. Concomitantes psicológicos del puerperio inmediato: la hospitalización postarto. Análisis y modificación de conducta [Internet]. 1991[accesado 10 abr 2019]; 17(52): [p.163-80]. Disponible en: publicaciones/ojs/index.php/amc/article/view/ 1950
  • 2. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Appropiate Technology for birth. The Lancet [Internet]. 24 ago 1985 [accesado 13 abr 2019]; 326(8452): [p.434–6]. Disponible en: 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92749-7
  • 3. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Estrategia de Atención al Parto Normal en el Sistema Nacional de Salud [Internet]. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo; 2007 [accesado 20 abr 2019]. Disponible en:
  • 4. Gibb D. Operative delivery in safe practice. En Clements R. Obstetrics and gynaecology; a medico legal handbook. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1994.
  • 5. Brucker M, MacMullen N. Delivery scripts: fantasy versus reality. Points of View. 1987; 24: p. 20-1.
  • 6. Lavender T, Walkinshaw S, Walton I. A prospective study of women's views of factors contributing to a positive birth experience. Midwifery [Internet]. mar 1999 [accesado 25 abr 2019]; 15(1): [p.40-6]. Disponible en:
  • 7. Stainton M. The perinatal family. En Gillis C, Highly B, Martinsen I. Toward a science of family nursing. Palo Alto: Addison-Wesley; 1988.
  • 8. Knapp M. Childbirth satisfaction: the effects of internality and perceived control. Journal of Perinatal Education. 31 dic 1996; 5: p. 7-16.
  • 9. España. Jefatura del Estado. Ley 16/2003, de 28 mayo, de Cohesión y Calidad del Sistema Nacional de Salud. BOE [Internet]. 29 may 2003 [accesado 23 mar 2019]; (128): [p.20567-88]. Disponible en:
  • 10.Mira JJ, Aranaz J. La satisfacción del paciente como una medida del resultado de la atención sanitaria. Med Clin [Internet]. 2000 [accesado 20 mar 2019]; 114(supl 3): [p.26-33]. Disponible en:
  • 11.Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Quart [Internet]. 1966 [accesado 21 abr 2019]; (44): [p.166-206]. Disponible en: articles/PMC2690293/pdf/milq0083-0397.pdf
  • 12.Hodnett E, Lowe N, Hannah M, Willan A, Stevens B, Weston J, et al. Effectiveness of nurses as providers of birth labor support in North American hospitals: a randomized controlled trial. Jama [Internet]. 2002 [accesado 21 abr 2019]; 288(11): [p.1373-81]. Disponible en:
  • 13.Goodman P, Mackey M, Tavakoli A. Factors related to childbirth satisfaction. J Adv Nurs [Internet]. abr 2004 [accesado 21 abr 2019]; 46(2): [p.212-9]. Disponible en: l .es/doi/ 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2003.02981.x/pdf
  • 14.National Health Service. Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS [Internet]. Londres; Secretary of State for Health. Crown: © jul 2010 [accesado 30 abr 2019]. Disponible en: https:// up loads /a t t achmen t_da ta / f i l e /213823 / dh_117794.pdf
  • 15.Bohigas L. La Satisfacción del Paciente. Gac Sanit [Internet]. 1995 [accesado 12 mar 2019]; 9(50): [p.283-6]. Disponible en: article/pii/S021391119571250X
  • 16.Fitzpatrick R. Surveys of patient satisfaction: II-Designing a questionnaire and conducting a survey. BMJ [Internet]. 11 may 1991 [accesado 20 abr 2019]; 302(6785): [p.1129-32]. Disponible en: PMC1669839/pdf/bmj00125-0039.pdf
  • 17.Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social. Guías de Práctica Clínica sobre la Atención al Parto Normal [Internet]. Vitoria-Gesteiz: Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco; 2010 [accesado 27 mar 2019]. Disponible en:
  • 18.Domínguez Cano P, Gonzalo del Moral T, Lainez Villabona B, Eligio Torres M. Guía de Asistencia del Parto en Casa [Internet]. Barcelona: Col-Legi Oficial de Infermeria de Barcelona; 2010 [accesado 2 abr 2019]. Disponible en:
  • 19.International Confederation of Midwives. Philosophy and Model of Midwifery Care [Internet]. The Hague: International Confederation of Midwives; ©2017 [actualizado 2014; accesado 5 may 2019]. Disponible en: icm-core-documents.html
  • 20.Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Rotura Prematura de Membrana. Protocolos Asistenciales. Prog Obstet Ginecol [Internet]. 2004 [accesado 2 abr 2019]; 47(5): [p.250-4]. Disponible en:
  • 21.ACOG. Committee on Practice, Bulletins-Obstetrics No. 139: Premature rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. oct 2013 [accesado 2 abr 2019]; 22(4): [p.918-30]. Disponible en : h t tp : / /dx .do i .o rg /10 .1097/01 .AOG. 0000435415.21944.8f
  • 22.Duff P. Premature rupture of membranes at term. N Engl J Med [Internet].18 abr 1996 [accesado 2 abr 2019]; 334(16): [p.1053-4]. Disponible en: 223976200/fulltextPDF/3B23C74018044787PQ/ 1?accountid=159038
  • 23.Hannah M, Ohlsson A, Farine D, Hewson S, Hodnett, Ellen D, et al. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 18 abr 1996 [accesado 2 abr 2019]; 334(16): [p.1005-10]. Disponible en: h t t p : / / s e a r c h . p r o q u e s t . c o m / d o c v i e w / 223991236?accountid=159038
  • 24.Dare M, Middleton P, Crowther C, Flenady V, Varatharaju B. Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of the membranes at term (37 weeks or more). Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 25 ene 2006 [accesado 21 mar 2019]; (1): [163 pp.]. Disponible en: epdf
  • 25.Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Protocolos Asistenciales. Rotura Prematura de Membranas. [Internet]. Madrid: ProSEGO; jun 2012 [accesado 15 abr 2019]. Disponible en:
  • 26.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Inducing labour [Internet]. Londres: National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health; jul 2008 [accesado 12 abr 2019]. Disponible en:
  • 27.Murthy K, Grobman W, Lee T, Holl J. Trends in induction of labor at early-term gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2011 [accesado 3 abr 2019]; 204(5): [p.435.e1-6]. Disponible en: h t t p : / / science/article/pii/S0002937810024695
  • 28.Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstericia. Inducción del parto (actualizado julio del 2013). Prog Obstet Ginecol [Internet]. ene 2015 [accesado 20 abr 2019]; 58(1): [p.54-64]. Disponible en:
  • 29.García-Díaz L, Zapardiel I, Castro-Gavilán D. Estimulación del parto. Indicaciones, técnicas y resultados de la inducción del parto. Maduración Cervical. En: Bajo Arenas JM, Melchor Marcos JC, Mercé LT. Fundamentos de Obstetricia (SEGO) [Internet]. Madrid: Gráficas Mate S.L.; 2007 [accesado 2 may 2019]; [p.823-33]. Disponible en: obstreticia.pdf
  • 30.ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins Obstetrics. Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecology [Internet]. ago 2009 [accesado 20 abr 2019]; 114(2 part 1): [p.386-97]. Disponible en: http:// o v i d s p . o v i d . c o m / o v i d w e b . c g i ? T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=ov ft&AN=00006250-200908000-00030&PDF=y
  • 31.Mackey M. Women’s evaluation of their childbirth performance. Matern Child Nurs J [Internet]. 1 abr 1995 [accesado 3 abr 2019]; 23(2): [p.57-72]. Disponible en: s_evaluation_of_childbirth_performance
  • 32.Mas-Pons R, Barona-Vilar C, Carregui-Vilar S, Ibanez-Gil N, Margaix-Fontestad L, EscribaAguir V. Women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: validation of the Mackey Childbirth Satisfaction Rating Scale. Gac Sanit [Internet]. 1 jun 2012 [accesado 3 abr 2019]; 26(3): [p.236-42]. Disponible en:
  • 33.Mackey MC. Women's evaluation of the labor and delivery experience. Nursingconnections [Internet]. Feb 1998 [accesado 20 mar 2019]; 11(3): [p.19-32]. Disponible en:'s_evaluation_of_the_labor_and_delivery_experience
  • 34.Melender HL. What constitutes a good childbirth? A qualitative study of pregnant finnish women. J Midwifery Womens Health [Internet]. 10 sep 2006 [accesado 5 abr 2019]; 51(5): [p. 331-9]. Diponible en: 2006.02.009/epdf
  • 35.Smith L. Development of a multidimensional labour satisfaction questionnaire: dimensions, validity, and internal realibility. Qual Health Care [Internet]. 2001 [accesado 14 abr 2019]; 10: [p. 17-22]. Disponible en:
  • 36.Christiaens W, Bracke P. Assessment of social psychological determinants of satisfaction with childbirth in a cross-national perspective. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth [Internet]. 26 oct 2007 [accesado 17 abr 2019]; 7(26): [12 pp]. Diponible en: PMC2200649/pdf/1471-2393-7-26.pdf
  • 37.Waldenstrom U, Hildingsson I, Rubertsson C, Radestad I. A negative birth experience: prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Birth [Internet]. 19 mar 2004 [accesado 13 abr 2019]; 31(1): [p.17-26]. Disponible en: http://onlinelib r a r y . w i l e y . c o m / d o i / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 0730-7659.2004.0270.x/pdf
  • 38.Green J, Coupland V. Kitzinger J. Expectations, experiences, and psychological outcomes of childbirth: A prospective study of 825 women. Birth [Internet]. Mar 1990 [accesado 5 abr 2019]; 17(1): [p.15-24]. Disponible en: http:// 10.1111/j.1523-536X.1990.tb00004.x/epdf
  • 39.Crane JM, Young DC. Induction of labour with a favourable cervix and/or pre-labour rupture of membranes. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol [Internet]. Oct 2003 [accesado 5 abr 2019]; 17(5): [p. 795-809]. Diponible en: http:// science/article/pii/S1521693403000671
  • 40.Sadler LC, Davison T, McCowan LM. Maternal satisfaction with active management of labor: A randomized controlled trial. Birth [Internet]. Dic 2001 [accesado 13 abr 2019]; 28(4): [p.225-35]. Disponible en: 2001.00225.x/epdf
  • 41.Tan BP, Hannah ME. Oxytocin for prelabour rupture of membranes at or near term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2000 [accesado 5 abr 2019]; (2). Diponible en: l .es/doi/ 10.1002/14651858.CD000157/pdf