Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32252679›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020

Measuring women's experiences of decision-making and aspects of midwifery support: a confirmatory factor analysis of the revised Childbirth Experience Questionnaire.

Anna Dencker, Liselotte Bergqvist, Marie Berg, Josephine T V Greenbrook, Christina Nilsson, Ingela Lundgren

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05032456 (Immersive Virtual Reality Improves Satisfaction In Laboring Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT05032456 nacompletednot on this map

Immersive Virtual Reality Improves Satisfaction In Laboring Women

TypeinterventionalSponsorBahçeşehir UniversityRan2020 to 2021Enrolled42ConditionsLabor PainArmsOculus Quest All-in-one VR Gaming Headset (128 GB) VR system
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Assessment of childbirth experience over time-A prospective cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors.

Anna DenckerInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. anna.dencker@gu.se.
Liselotte BergqvistInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Marie BergInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Josephine T V GreenbrookInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Christina NilssonFaculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden.
Ingela LundgrenInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen's experiences of labour and birth can have both short- and long-term effects on their physical and psychological health. The original Swedish version of the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) has shown to have good psychometric quality and ability to differentiate between groups known to differ in childbirth experience. Two subscales were revised in order to include new items with more relevant content about decision-making and aspects of midwifery support. The aim of the study was to develop new items in two subscales and to test construct validity and reliability of the revised version of CEQ, called CEQ2.

methodA total of 11 new items (Professional Support and Participation) and 14 original items from the first CEQ (Own capacity and Perceived safety), were answered by 682 women with spontaneous onset of labour. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to analyse model fit.

resultsThe hypothesised four-factor model showed good fit (CMIN = 2.79; RMR = 0.33; GFI = 0.94; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.054 and PCLOSE = 0.12) Cronbach's alpha was good for all subscales (0.82, 0.83, 0.76 and 0.73) and for the total scale (0.91).

conclusionsCEQ2, like the first CEQ, yields four important aspects of experience during labour and birth showing good psychometric performance, including decision-making and aspects of midwifery support, in both primiparous and multiparous women.

Indexed as

Decision MakingMidwiferyPatient SatisfactionAdultDelivery, ObstetricFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansLabor, ObstetricParturitionPregnancyPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenTranslationsCEQCEQ2Childbirth experience questionnaireMaternal satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID32252679
PMCPMC7137445

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.