ArticleBMJ open2016
Comparative study analysing women's childbirth satisfaction and obstetric outcomes across two different models of maternity care.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pharmacological pain relief and women´s birth experience: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effects of labor support on pregnant women's childbirth comfort, satisfaction and postpartum comfort levels: a randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Trial
- The effect of mindfulness-based counseling on the childbirth experience of primiparous women: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Trial
- Impact of delivery mode on childbirth satisfaction, birth memory, and pregnancy avoidance.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Effect of involvement of midwives in maternal care on patient and provider satisfaction in secondary-level public health facilities in Bangladesh: a comparative quasi-experimental study.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Evaluating patient experience in maternity services using a Bayesian belief network model.PloS one · 2025Article
- Indigenous Peoples' evaluation of health risks when facing mandatory evacuation for birth during the COVID-19 pandemic: an indigenous feminist analysis.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Need of integrated care model for positive childbirth experience in Indian maternity care services.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Unveiling contextual influences of maternal satisfaction with labour care services in Nigeria: A qualitative inquiry.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2023Article
- A critical review: developing a birth integrity framework for epidemiological studies through meta-ethnography.BMC women's health · 2023Review
- Review
- The views and perceptions of water immersion for labor and birth from women who had birthed in Australia but had not used the option.European journal of midwifery · 2022Article
- The Association between Birth Satisfaction and the Risk of Postpartum Depression.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Operationalizing respectful maternity care at the healthcare provider level: a systematic scoping review.Reproductive health · 2021Article
- Satisfaction with maternity care among recent migrants: an interview questionnaire-based study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Analgesic Effects of Epidural Labor Analgesia at Different Periods and Its Effects on Maternal and Infant Outcomes and MiRNA-146b Level.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Health Care Experience Among Women Who Completed Group Prenatal Care (CenteringPregnancy) Compared to Individual Prenatal Care Within Military Treatment Facilities.Journal of patient experience · 2020Article
- Article
- Patient satisfaction with peri-partum care at Bertha Gxowa district hospital, South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the differences in obstetrical results and women's childbirth satisfaction across 2 different models of maternity care (biomedical model and humanised birth).
setting2 university hospitals in south-eastern Spain from April to October 2013.
designA correlational descriptive study.
participantsA convenience sample of 406 women participated in the study, 204 of the biomedical model and 202 of the humanised model.
resultsThe differences in obstetrical results were (biomedical model/humanised model): onset of labour (spontaneous 66/137, augmentation 70/1, p=0.0005), pain relief (epidural 172/132, no pain relief 9/40, p=0.0005), mode of delivery (normal vaginal 140/165, instrumental 48/23, p=0.004), length of labour (0-4 hours 69/93, >4 hours 133/108, p=0.011), condition of perineum (intact perineum or tear 94/178, episiotomy 100/24, p=0.0005). The total questionnaire score (100) gave a mean (M) of 78.33 and SD of 8.46 in the biomedical model of care and an M of 82.01 and SD of 7.97 in the humanised model of care (p=0.0005). In the analysis of the results per items, statistical differences were found in 8 of the 9 subscales. The highest scores were reached in the humanised model of maternity care.
conclusionsThe humanised model of maternity care offers better obstetrical outcomes and women's satisfaction scores during the labour, birth and immediate postnatal period than does the biomedical model.
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.