ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2022
'Labour Hopscotch': Women's evaluation of using the steps during labor.
Article in European journal of midwifery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07330557 (Effect of the Labour Hopscotch Method on the Labor Process and Maternal Satisfaction), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Effect of the Labour Hopscotch Method on the Labor Process and Maternal Satisfaction: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of labour hopscotch framework on maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women: A randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Pregnant women's knowledge and needs on labor mobility: implications for childbirth preparation - a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- From antenatal preparedness to enacted agency during labor: Integrated findings from a woman-centered intervention on mobility.European journal of midwifery · 2026Article
- Article
- Empowering women in decision-making about mobility during labor: Insights from experts.European journal of midwifery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConcerns have been expressed globally about the decline in rates of physiological birth and rising intervention rates during labor and birth. The 'Labour Hopscotch' Framework, a visual depiction of steps required to remain active during labor was implemented in a large tertiary maternity hospital in Ireland. The aim of this study was to evaluate the steps of the Labour Hopscotch women found most useful, examine the use of non-pharmacological and pharmacological methods of pain relief used during labor and finally to investigate the labor and birth outcomes of women who used 'Labour Hopscotch' during labor.
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using a study specific questionnaire.
resultsA total of 809 women completed the questionnaire. The Labour Hopscotch Framework was positively evaluated. Mobilizing, the birthing ball, birthing stool, and water therapy were found to be the most useful steps. Primiparous women were more likely to use non-pharmacological methods of pain relief. Pharmacological methods used by women were entonox (67.5%), pethidine (8%) and epidural analgesia (38.5%). Primiparous women were more likely to have epidural analgesia than multiparous women (p<0.00001). Women that attended either private (p=0.004) or public-led obstetric (p=0.005) antenatal care were more likely to have epidural analgesia in labor. Women attending the community midwives were least likely to receive epidural analgesia during labor. The rates of spontaneous vaginal birth, assisted birth and cesarean section, were 77.1%, 14% and 8.7%, respectively.
conclusionsOur study findings contribute to the increasing national and international evidence that initiatives such as Labour Hopscotch can promote and advocate for women to be active and mobile during labor to support physiological birth.
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.