Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Original Papers

Comparison of hypnosis with conventional relaxation for antenatal and intrapartum use: a feasibility study in general practice

Les R. Brann and Sally A. Guzvica
The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 1987; 37 (303): 437-440.
Les R. Brann
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sally A. Guzvica
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

A hypnosis programme for antenatal and intrapartum use has been developed and successfully introduced into a practice as an alternative to conventional relaxation training. Of 96 women from the practice who delivered during the 10-month period of the study 51 opted for the psychoprophylaxis and 45 for the hypnosis. Details of the pregnancy, labour and postnatal period were collected for both groups, together with a subjective assessment of their satisfaction with labour.

Disparity between the ages and parity of the two groups made comparisons difficult. The duration of the first stage of labour was markedly reduced in the hypnosis group by 98 minutes for primiparas and 40 minutes for multiparas. A small (five minutes) increase in the length of the second stage may have been a result of the hypnotic relaxation. The verbalization has been amended accordingly. The hypnosis group were more satisfied with labour than the psychoprophylaxis group (mean satisfaction score 7.4 versus 5.6) and they reported other benefits of hypnosis, for example, reduction in anxiety and help with getting to sleep.Further studies are planned.

  • © Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners: 37 (303)
The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
Vol. 37, Issue 303
October 1987
  • Table of Contents
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of hypnosis with conventional relaxation for antenatal and intrapartum use: a feasibility study in general practice
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Comparison of hypnosis with conventional relaxation for antenatal and intrapartum use: a feasibility study in general practice
Les R. Brann, Sally A. Guzvica
The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 1987; 37 (303): 437-440.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Comparison of hypnosis with conventional relaxation for antenatal and intrapartum use: a feasibility study in general practice
Les R. Brann, Sally A. Guzvica
The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 1987; 37 (303): 437-440.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • How people present symptoms to health services: a theory-based content analysis
  • Central or local incident reporting? A comparative study in Dutch GP out-of-hours services
  • Screening of testicular descent in older boys is worthwhile: an observational study
Show more Original Papers

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242