Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28662645›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017

Measuring women's childbirth experiences: a systematic review for identification and analysis of validated instruments.

Helena Nilvér, Cecily Begley, Marie Berg

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 84 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03654079 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2027, after this paper: background citation

Patient Centered Simulation For Labor and Delivery

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2027 to 2027Enrolled50ConditionsPregnancy RelatedArmsSimulation
NCT07555353 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Translation and Validation Into French of a Maternal Satisfaction Scale Following a Cesarean Section

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Hospital, GrenobleRan2026 to 2027Enrolled210ConditionsPost-Cesarean Maternal Satisfaction ScaleArmsPost-Cesarean Maternal Satisfaction Scale Questionnaire
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Helena NilvérInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. helena.nilver@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8562-3068
Cecily BegleyInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Marie BergInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen's childbirth experience can have immediate as well as long-term positive or negative effects on their life, well-being and health. When evaluating and drawing conclusions from research results, women's experiences of childbirth should be one aspect to consider. Researchers and clinicians need help in finding and selecting the most suitable instrument for their purpose. The aim of this study was therefore to systematically identify and present validated instruments measuring women's childbirth experience.

methodsA systematic review was conducted in January 2016 with a comprehensive search in the bibliographic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, The Cochrane Library and PsycINFO. Included instruments measured women's childbirth experiences. Papers were assessed independently by two reviewers for inclusion, and quality assessment of included instruments was made by two reviewers independently and in pairs using Terwee et al's criteria for evaluation of psychometric properties.

resultsIn total 5189 citations were screened, of which 5106 were excluded by title and abstract. Eighty-three full-text papers were reviewed, and 37 papers were excluded, resulting in 46 included papers representing 36 instruments. These instruments demonstrated a wide range in purpose and content as well as in the quality of psychometric properties.

conclusionsThis systematic review provides an overview of existing instruments measuring women's childbirth experiences and can support researchers to identify appropriate instruments to be used, and maybe adapted, in their specific contexts and research purpose.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansParturitionPregnancyPsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesChildbirth experiencesChildbirth satisfactionMeasurement instrumentsPsychometric propertiesSystematic reviewValidated questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID28662645
PMCPMC5492707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.