ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2024
Evaluation of a short in-person and online antenatal educational intervention for high-risk pregnant women linked to antenatal consultation.
Article in European journal of midwifery, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Healthcare providers' educational role and Saudi pregnant women's knowledge of active labor signs: a cross-sectional correlational study.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Article
- A Case of Headache Treated by Online Telemedicine in Collaboration With a Midwifery Home.Cureus · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate a short educational intervention that focused on labor pain (through visual analogue scale, VAS), postpartum anxiety, and birthing experience before and during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic.
methodsThis was a quasi-experimental study conducted between November 2019 and May 2021 in Brazil in 100 women with a high-risk pregnancy in the third trimester of pregnancy with an intervention group with in-person or virtual sessions (during the COVID-19 pandemic) and a non-intervention group. The antenatal intervention included breathing and relaxation techniques, upright positions, and information about labor. For evaluation, an antenatal questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and a postpartum questionnaire were used. For data analysis, Student's t-test, chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests, ANOVA, bivariate, and multivariate regression analysis, were used.
resultsWhen comparing the women in the intervention group to the non-intervention group, it was observed that the latter group reported higher fear of pain at labor during antenatal consultations (p<0.013); more women needed analgesia at 0-4 cm dilation (17/40) (p<0.018); the duration of labor was ≥12 hours (37/50) (p<0.037); while the intervention reported having a regular, good or excellent labor period (36/50) (p=0.014). The multiple regression analysis for labor pain showed a significant relationship between mode of delivery (cesarean delivery: RR; SE -21.43; 5.32, p<0.001) and labor pain, and good satisfaction with labor (RR; SE -13.86; 6.40, p=0.033).
conclusionsWomen from the intervention group had more satisfaction and less pain during labor than women from the non-intervention group.
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.