Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36918812›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023

Overall childbirth experience: what does it mean? A comparison between an overall childbirth experience rating and the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire 2.

Frida Viirman, Susanne Hesselman, Inger Sundström Poromaa, Agneta Skoog Svanberg, Anna Wikman

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Assessment of childbirth experience over time-A prospective cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Frida ViirmanDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Akademiska Sjukhuset, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden. frida.viirman@kbh.uu.se.
Susanne HesselmanDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Akademiska Sjukhuset, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden.
Inger Sundström PoromaaDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Akademiska Sjukhuset, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden.
Agneta Skoog SvanbergDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Akademiska Sjukhuset, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden.
Anna WikmanDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Akademiska Sjukhuset, 75185, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn clinical settings and research studies, childbirth experience is often measured using a single-item question about overall experience. Little is known about what women include in this rating, which complicates the design of adequate follow-up, as well as the interpretation of research findings based on ratings of overall childbirth experience. The aim of this study was to examine which known dimensions of childbirth experience women include in the rating on a single-item measure.

methodsRatings of overall childbirth experience on a 10-point numeric rating scale (NRS) from 2953 women with spontaneous or induced onset of labour at two Swedish hospitals were evaluated against the validated Childbirth Experience Questionnaire 2 (CEQ2), completed on one of the first days postpartum. The CEQ2 measures four childbirth experience domains: own capacity, perceived safety, professional support and participation. Internal consistency for CEQ2 was evaluated by calculating Cronbach's alpha. NRS ratings were explored in relation to CEQ2 using empirical cumulative distribution function graphs, where childbirth experience was defined as negative (NRS ratings 1-4), mixed (NRS ratings 5-6) or positive (NRS ratings 7-10). A multiple linear regression analysis, presented as beta coefficients (B) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), was also performed to explore the relationship between the four domains of the CEQ2 and overall childbirth experience.

resultsThe prevalence of negative childbirth experience was 6.3%. All CEQ2-subscales reached high or acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.78; 0.81; 0.69 and 0.66, respectively). Regardless of overall childbirth experience, the majority of respondents scored high on the CEQ2 subscale representing professional support. Overall childbirth experience was mainly explained by perceived safety (B = 1.60, CI 1.48-1.73), followed by own capacity (B = 0.65, CI 0.53-0.77) and participation (B = 0.43, CI 0.29-0.56).

conclusionsIn conclusion, overall childbirth experience rated by a single-item measurement appears to mainly capture experiences of perceived safety, and to a lesser extent own capacity and participation, but appears not to reflect professional support. CEQ2 shows good psychometric properties for use shortly after childbirth, and among women with induced onset of labour, which increases the usability of the instrument.

Indexed as

Labor, ObstetricParturitionDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansPregnancyPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesBirth satisfactionCEQ2Childbirth experienceLabourPsychological birth traumaQuestionnairesSingle-itemVASVisual Analogue Scale

Identifiers

PMID36918812
PMCPMC10012290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read20
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.