Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38722999›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Tending to the machine: The impact of intrapartum fetal surveillance on women in Australia.

Deborah Fox, Rebecca Coddington, Kate M Levett, Vanessa Scarf, Kerry L Sutcliffe, Elizabeth Newnham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Deborah FoxCollective for Midwifery, Child and Family Health (CMCFH), University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8032-8633
Rebecca CoddingtonCollective for Midwifery, Child and Family Health (CMCFH), University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kate M LevettCollective for Midwifery, Child and Family Health (CMCFH), University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Vanessa ScarfCollective for Midwifery, Child and Family Health (CMCFH), University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3503-9610
Kerry L SutcliffeSchool of Medicine, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Elizabeth NewnhamSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Qualitative research about women and birthing people's experiences of fetal monitoring during labour and birth is scant. Labour and birth is often impacted by wearable or invasive monitoring devices, however, most published research about fetal monitoring is focused on the wellbeing of the fetus. This manuscript is derived from a larger mixed methods study, 'WOmen's Experiences of Monitoring Baby (The WOMB Study)', aiming to increase understanding of the experiences of women and birthing people in Australia, of being monitored; and about the information they received about fetal monitoring devices during pregnancy. We constructed a national cross-sectional survey that was distributed via social media in May and June, 2022. Responses were received from 861 participants. As far as we are aware, this is the first survey of the experiences of women and birthing people of intrapartum fetal monitoring conducted in Australia. This paper comprises the analysis of the free text survey responses, using qualitative and inductive content analysis. Two categories were constructed, Tending to the machine, which explores participants' perceptions of the way in which clinicians interacted with fetal monitoring technologies; and Impressions of the machine, which explores the direct impact of fetal monitoring devices upon the labour and birth experience of women and birthing people. The findings suggest that some clinicians need to reflect upon the information they provide to women and birthing people about monitoring. For example, freedom of movement is an important aspect of supporting the physiology of labour and managing pain. If freedom of movement is important, the physical restriction created by a wired cardiotocograph is inappropriate. Many participants noticed that clinicians focused their attention primarily on the technology. Prioritising the individual needs of the woman or birthing person is key to providing high quality woman-centred intrapartum care. Women should be provided with adequate information regarding the risks and benefits of different forms of fetal monitoring including how the form of monitoring might impact her labour experience.

Indexed as

Fetal MonitoringLabor, ObstetricAdultAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansParturitionPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38722999
PMCPMC11081371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.