ABSTRACT

Background: Labor pain is a subjective experience reported by more than 90% of women during childbirth. If inadequately managed, labor pain may contribute to increased maternal anxiety, prolonged labor, and potential obstetric complications. Non-pharmacological pain management strategies, such as counterpressure massage, have gained attention as safe, cost-effective, and low-risk alternatives to pharmacological interventions.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of counterpressure massage in reducing labor pain intensity among childbearing women.
Methods: A quasi-experimental study with a pretest–posttest control group design was conducted among laboring women in the working area of Kuala Bhee Primary Health Center in March 2025. A total of 28 respondents were selected and divided into an experimental group (n = 14), who received counterpressure massage for 20 minutes, and a control group (n = 14), who were provided with deep breathing techniques. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test and the Mann–Whitney U Test.
Results: The findings demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in labor pain intensity in the experimental group (p = 0.001), with the mean pain score decreasing to 3.21. In contrast, the control group did not show a significant reduction in pain intensity (p = 0.084), with a mean pain score of 5.64. Furthermore, the majority of participants in the experimental group experienced a reduction in pain to the mild category (57.1%) following the intervention.
Conclusion: Counterpressure massage was proven to be more effective than deep breathing techniques in reducing labor pain intensity. This method is recommended as a non-pharmacological intervention to be integrated into routine midwifery care for laboring women.

KEYWORDS

Labor Pain, Counterpressure Massage, Non-Pharmacological Pain Management, Childbearing Women.

REFERENCES

1) S. I. Karlsdottir and N. Leap, “The importance of promoting positive childbirth experiences for women: a perspective paper,” Front. Glob. Womens Health, vol. 6, 2025, doi: 10.3389/FGWH.2025.1599249/PDF.
2) S. I. Karlsdottir and N. Leap, “The importance of promoting positive childbirth experiences for women: a perspective paper,” Front. Glob. Womens Health, vol. 6, p. 1599249, 2025, doi: 10.3389/FGWH.2025.1599249.
3) R. Skewt, “Psychological effects of physical childbirth on women: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Labor and Childbirth, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 7-, Feb. 2023,

doi: 10.37532/JLCB.2023.6(2).013-019.
4) S. I. Karlsdottir and N. Leap, “The importance of promoting positive childbirth experiences for women: a perspective paper,” Front. Glob. Womens Health, vol. 6, p. 1599249, 2025, doi: 10.3389/FGWH.2025.1599249.
5) A. D. Grant and E. N. Erickson, “Birth, love, and fear: Physiological networks from pregnancy to parenthood,” Compr. Psychoneuroendocrinol., vol. 11, p. 100138, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.CPNEC.2022.100138.
6) A. Tandon, K. Gujral, and V. Gupta, “Labour Pain: A Comprehensive Review of Perceptions, Experiences, and Sociocultural Influences on Pain and Its Management Practices,” Cureus, vol. 17, no. 6, p. e86540, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.7759/CUREUS.86540.
7) N. M. Alorfi, “Pharmacological Methods of Pain Management: Narrative Review of Medication Used,” Int. J. Gen. Med., vol. 16, p. 3247, Jul. 2023,

doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S419239.
8) W.-Q. Yu, Z.-Q. Zhu, and F.-S. Tang, “Advances in epidural labor analgesia: Effectiveness and treatment strategies of butorphanol,” World J. Clin. Cases, vol. 12, no. 34, p. 6669, 2024, doi: 10.12998/WJCC.V12.I34.6669.
9) P. Salmon, R. Miller, and N. C. Drew, “Women’s anticipation and experience of childbirth: the independence of fulfillment, unpleasantness and pain,” Br. J. Med. Psychol., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 255–259, 1990, doi: 10.1111/J.2044-8341.1990.TB01617.X.
10) K. Cook and C. Loomis, “The Impact of Choice and Control on Women’s Childbirth Experiences,” J. Perinat. Educ., vol. 21, no. 3, p. 158, 2012, 

doi: 10.1891/1058-1243.21.3.158.
11) R. Zhu, Q. Pan, and X. Cao, “Comparisons of nonpharmaceutical analgesia and pharmaceutical analgesia on the labor analgesia effect of parturient women,” Immun. Inflamm. Dis., vol. 11, no. 7, p. e869, 2023, doi: 10.1002/IID3.869.
12) A. I. Basbaum, D. M. Bautista, G. Scherrer, and D. Julius, “Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Pain,” Cell, vol. 139, no. 2, p. 267, Oct. 2009,

doi: 10.1016/J.CELL.2009.09.028.
13) M. F. Yam, Y. C. Loh, C. S. Tan, S. K. Adam, N. A. Manan, and R. Basir, “General pathways of pain sensation and the major neurotransmitters involved in pain regulation,” Int. J. Mol. Sci., vol. 19, no. 8, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.3390/IJMS19082164.
14) M. Karcz et al., “Pathophysiology of Pain and Mechanisms of Neuromodulation: A Narrative Review (A Neuron Project),” J. Pain Res., vol. 17, p. 3757, 2024,

doi: 10.2147/JPR.S475351.
15) M. A. Wewege, M. D. Jones, S. A. Williams, S. J. Kamper, and J. H. McAuley, “Rescaling pain intensity measures for meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain appears justified: an empirical examination from randomised trials,” BMC Med. Res. Methodol., vol. 22, no. 1, p. 285, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1186/S12874-022-01763-X.
16) B. R. da Costa, P. Saadat, R. M. Basciani, A. Agarwal, B. C. Johnston, and P. Jüni, “Visual Analogue Scale has higher assay sensitivity than WOMAC pain in detecting between-group differences in treatment effects: a meta-epidemiological study,” Osteoarthritis Cartilage, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 304–312, Mar. 2021,

doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2020.10.004.
17) P. S. Myles et al., “Measuring acute postoperative pain using the visual analog scale: The minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state,” Br. J. Anaesth., vol. 118, no. 3, pp. 424–429, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1093/bja/aew466.