ArticleScientific reports2022
Factors associated with women's preferences for labor epidural analgesia in Singapore: a survey approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the association factors of acute postpartum pain: a cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- Determinants of labor epidural analgesia uptake and associations with maternal-neonatal outcomes: a stratified cohort study with risk prediction modeling.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Sub-acute pain after childbirth during COVID-19 pandemic: A secondary analysis of A prospective clinical trial.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief during labor. However, there is limited information on the factors associated with pregnant women's preferences for labor epidural analgesia (LEA) prior to labor onset. We performed a secondary analysis of a clinical trial to identify demographic characteristics, pain and psychological vulnerability factors associated with preferences for LEA. Pregnant women at ≥ 36 weeks' gestation prior to labor and delivery were recruited and given questionnaires on their LEA preferences, psychological and pain vulnerabilities. The primary outcome was the association between pre-delivery Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) with cut-off ≥ 10 and LEA preference. Of the 250 women recruited, 51.6% (n = 129) indicated "yes to LEA". Amongst those considering LEA as an option to reduce labor pain, women who preferred to use LEA (n = 129) indicated favorable or neutral opinion. Additionally, 68% (n = 82) from those "no to LEA" or "not sure about LEA" still gave either favorable or neutral opinion for LEA (p < 0.0001). The multivariate logistic regression analysis found that EPDS ≥ 10 (p < 0.01), occupation (p = 0.03), ethnicity (p < 0.01), state anxiety (p = 0.02), mode of current pregnancy (unplanned; planned, assisted; planned, natural; p = 0.03) and premenstrual anger/irritability before current pregnancy (p = 0.02) were associated with LEA preference. The findings may help to define the population that may require further education on considering LEA and allow early identification on different LEA preferences to provide patient centric care prior to labor and delivery.
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.