Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2014
Women's experiences of two different self-assessment methods for monitoring fetal movements in full-term pregnancy--a crossover trial.
Trial report in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02865759 (Empowering Women to Shorten Pre-hospital Delay After Decreased Fetal Movements and Simultaneously Lower the Frequency of Unwarranted Visits - a Randomized Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Empowering Women to Shorten Pre-hospital Delay After Decreased Fetal Movements and Simultaneously Lower the Frequency of Unwarranted Visits - a Randomized Study
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of fetal movement awareness on birth outcomes among Somali migrant women - findings from a non-randomised intervention study in Sweden.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Pregnancy outcomes among women born in Somalia and Sweden giving birth in the Stockholm area - a population-based study.Global health action · 2020Trial
- A decrease in cesarean sections and labor inductions among Swedish women by awareness of fetal movements with the Mindfetalness method.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Trial
- Fetal and maternal surveillance in high-risk pregnancy: tools, timing, and trends.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Review
- The effect of formal fetal movement counting on maternal psychological outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of midwifery · 2022Review
- Women's attitudes, experiences and compliance concerning the use of Mindfetalness- a method for systematic observation of fetal movements in late pregnancy.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow maternal awareness of fetal movements is associated with negative birth outcomes. Knowledge regarding pregnant women's compliance with programs of systematic self-assessment of fetal movements is needed. The aim of this study was to investigate women's experiences using two different self-assessment methods for monitoring fetal movements and to determine if the women had a preference for one or the other method.
methodsData were collected by a crossover trial; 40 healthy women with an uncomplicated full-term pregnancy counted the fetal movements according to a Count-to-ten method and assessed the character of the movements according to the Mindfetalness method. Each self-assessment was observed by a midwife and followed by a questionnaire. A total of 80 self-assessments was performed; 40 with each method.
resultsOf the 40 women, only one did not find at least one method suitable. Twenty of the total of 39 reported a preference, 15 for the Mindfetalness method and five for the Count-to-ten method. All 39 said they felt calm, relaxed, mentally present and focused during the observations. Furthermore, the women described the observation of the movements as safe and reassuring and a moment for communication with their unborn baby.
conclusionsIn the 80 assessments all but one of the women found one or both methods suitable for self-assessment of fetal movements and they felt comfortable during the assessments. More women preferred the Mindfetalness method compared to the count-to-ten method, than vice versa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.