There is clear and important evidence that walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduces the duration of labour, the risk of caesarean birth, the need for epidural, and does not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers' and babies' well being. Given the great heterogeneity and high performance bias of study situations, better quality trials are still required to confirm with any confidence the true risks and benefits of upright and mobile positions compared with recumbent positions for all women. Based on the current findings, we recommend that women in low-risk labour should be informed of the benefits of upright positions, and encouraged and assisted to assume whatever positions they choose.

Background-It is more common for women in the developed world, and those in low-income countries giving birth in health facilities, to labour in bed. There is no evidence that this is associated with any advantage for women or babies, although it may be more convenient for staff. Observational studies have suggested that if women lie on their backs during labour this may have adverse effects on uterine contractions and impede progress in labour.

There is evidence that walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduce the length of labour and do not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers' and babies' wellbeing. Women should be encouraged to take up whatever position they find most comfortable in the first stage of labour.

OBJECTIVE We sought to evaluate the frequency of, and factors associated with, the use of 3 evidence-based interventions: antenatal corticosteroids for fetal lung maturity, progesterone for prevention of recurrent preterm birth, and magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection. STUDY DESIGN A self-administered survey was conducted from January through May 2011 among obstetricians from 21 hospitals that included 30 questions regarding their knowledge, attitudes, and practice of the 3 evidence-based interventions and the 14-item short version of the Team Climate for Innovation survey. Frequency of use of each intervention was ascertained from an obstetrical cohort of women between January 2010 and February 2011. RESULTS A total of 329 obstetricians (74% response rate) who managed 16,946 deliveries within the obstetrical cohort participated in the survey. More than 90% of obstetricians reported that they incorporated each intervention into routine practice. Actual frequency of administration in women eligible for the treatments was 93% for corticosteroids, 39% for progesterone, and 71%formagnesiumsulfate. Provider satisfaction with quality of treatment evidence was 97% for corticosteroids, 82% for progesterone, and 57% for magnesium sulfate. Obstetricians perceived that barriers to treatment were most frequent for progesterone (76%), 30% for magnesium sulfate, and 17% for corticosteroids. Progesterone use was more frequent among patients whose provider reported the quality of the evidence was above average to excellent compared with poor to average (42% vs 25%, respectively; P < .001), and they were satisfied with their knowledge of the intervention (41%vs 28%; P = .02), and was less common among patients whose provider reported barriers to hospital or pharmacy drug delivery (31% vs 42%; P = .01). Corticosteroid administration was more common among patients who delivered at hospitals with 24 hours a day–7 days a week maternal-fetal medicine specialist coverage (93% vs 84%; P = .046), CONCLUSION Obstetricians in Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network hospitals frequently use these evidence-based interventions; however, progesterone usewas found to be related to their assessment of evidence quality. Neither progesterone nor the other interventions were associated with overall climate of innovation within a hospital as measured by the Team Climate for Innovation. National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference Statements may also have an impact on use; there is such a statement for antenatal corticosteroids but not for progesterone for preterm prevention or magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection.

Objective The aim of this study was to assess long-term effects for women following the use of magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia.Design Assessment at 2-3 years after delivery for women recruited to the Magpie Trial (recruitment in 1998(recruitment in -2001, which compared magnesium sulphate with placebo for pre-eclampsia.Setting Follow up after discharge from hospital at 125 centres in 19 countries across five continents.Population A total of 7927 women were randomised at the followup centres. Of these women, 2544 were not included for logistic reasons and 601 excluded (109 at a centre where <20% of women were contacted, 466 discharged without a surviving child and 26 opted out). Therefore, 4782 women were selected for follow-up, of whom 3375 (71%) were traced.Methods Questionnaire assessment was administered largely by post or in a dedicated clinic. Interview assessment of selected women was performed.Main outcome measures Death or serious morbidity potentially related to pre-eclampsia at follow up, other morbidity and use of health service resources.Results Median time from delivery to follow up was 26 months (interquartile range 19-36). Fifty-eight of 1650 (3.5%) women allocated magnesium sulphate died or had serious morbidity potentially related to pre-eclampsia compared with 72 of 1725 (4.2%) women allocated placebo (relative risk 0.84, 95% CI 0.60-1.18). ConclusionsThe reduction in the risk of eclampsia following prophylaxis with magnesium sulphate was not associated with an excess of death or disability for the women after 2 years.