Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31730468›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

The childbirth experience: obstetric and psychological predictors in Italian primiparous women.

Valentina Fenaroli, Sara Molgora, Serena Dodaro, Alessandro Svelato, Livia Gesi, Giulia Molidoro, Emanuela Saita, Antonio Ragusa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Psychometric Reliability to Assess the Perception of Women's Fulfillment of Maternity Rights.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Valentina FenaroliDepartment of Psychology, Università Cattolica del Cacro Cuore, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan, Italy. valentina.fenaroli@unicatt.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5827-8369
Sara MolgoraDepartment of Psychology, Università Cattolica del Cacro Cuore, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan, Italy.
Serena DodaroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Tiber Island, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro SvelatoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Tiber Island, Rome, Italy.
Livia GesiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Tiber Island, Rome, Italy.
Giulia MolidoroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Tiber Island, Rome, Italy.
Emanuela SaitaDepartment of Psychology, Università Cattolica del Cacro Cuore, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan, Italy.
Antonio RagusaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Tiber Island, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe experience of childbirth crucially impacts a mother's psychological well-being and the mother-infant relationship. It is recognised that negative births can be linked to different forms of discomfort, both for the mother as well as for the infant. This prospective longitudinal study aimed to study the effect of obstetric and psychological variables on women's subjective experience of childbirth.

methods111 primiparous Italian women completed a set of questionnaires at 38-40 weeks of pregnancy (Time 1) and 1-5 days after childbirth (Time 2). Sociodemographic and obstetric information were collected. Data about the childbirth were obtained from the mother's ward birth records. Women completed the Wijma Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire both before and after childbirth.

resultsThe subjective experience of birth was significantly predicted by the duration of the expulsive phase (β = .26; p < .05), the use of epidural analgesia (β = .21;  p< .05) and by fear of birth (β = .21; p < .05). The effect of mode of birth and duration of the dilatation phase on women's birth experience was not found.

conclusionsIn our study, neither instrumental childbirth nor caesarean section have a significant effect on women's birth experience. Instead, both a longer expulsion phase and epidural analgesia contribute to the negative experience. Moreover, the higher the fear of birth, the worse the women's emotional experience. These findings confirmed the role of obstetric and psychological variables on birth experience. More investigation about this topic could be useful to develop specific interventions to prepare women for birth.

Indexed as

AdultCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricFearFemaleHumansItalyLongitudinal StudiesMothersParityParturitionPregnancyProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31730468
PMCPMC6858642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.