ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2022
Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pharmacological pain relief and women´s birth experience: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Validity and reliability of the persian adapted version of the labor pain relief attitude questionnaire for pregnant women (P-LPRAQ-p).Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Practice of pharmacological labor pain management and associated factors among healthcare providers in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.AJOG global reports · 2025Article
- Factors associated with the intention of pregnant women to give birth with epidural analgesia: a cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pregnant women have preferences about how they intend to manage labour pain. Unmet intentions can result in negative emotions and/or birth experiences. Objective: To examine the antenatal level of intention for intrapartum pain relief and the factors that might predict this intention. Design: A cross-sectional online survey-based study. Setting and participants: 414 healthy pregnant women in the Netherlands, predominantly receiving antenatal care from the community-based midwife who were recruited via maternity healthcare professionals and social media platforms. Methods: The attitude towards intrapartum pain relief was measured with the Labour Pain Relief Attitude Questionnaire for pregnant women. Personality traits with the HEXACO-60 questionnaire, general psychological health with the Mental Health Inventory-5 and labour and birth anxiety with the Tilburg Pregnancy Distress Scale. Multiple linear regression was performed with the intention for pain relief as the dependant variable. Results: The obstetrician as birth companion ( Conclusion: Understanding the reasons predicting women's intention of pain management during labour, provides insight in low-risk women's supportive needs prior to labour and are worth paying attention to during the antenatal period.
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.