ArticleBMC health services research2024
The application of a tool for supporting shared decision making in primiparous women during early labour - a descriptive survey of obstetric health care professionals' opinion.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential benefits of applying the GebStart-tool for advising primiparous women during early labor: A comparative study.European journal of midwifery · 2026Article
- Development and preliminary validation of the GebStart-tool for advising nulliparous women in early labour.PloS one · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterventions in maternity health care settings often need to be studied within everyday clinical work and with the contributions of the staff. Therefore, the health care workers on-site play an important role for research success. This explains why it is necessary not only to focus on the outcomes of the research project itself, but also to study the whole process.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate maternity care providers' satisfaction with the use of a preliminary long version of a standardised tool for supporting shared decision making in women during early labour.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was distributed to n = 607 maternity care professionals working in the study sites which applied a tool to support shared decision making in primiparous women in early labour. The data was collected using RedCap®. It was analysed descriptively, and logistic regression modelling was applied to find associations between the application of the tool and care as well as work organisation.
resultsA total of 110 health care professionals answered the online survey including 95 (86.4%) midwives and 15 (15.3%) obstetricians. N = 36 (43.9%) midwives stated that they found the tool helpful in the provision of care, whereas 46 (56.1%) did not agree. There was great dissatisfaction with the length of the preliminary tool. The tool adversely impacted the timely management of early labour care. Midwives with greater work experience (OR 0.82, p = 0.02) and a higher workload (OR 0.97, 0.02) were less likely to agree that the tool facilitates their work organisation. Additionally, midwives with more work experience (OR 0.86) and a higher workload (OR 0.96) found the tool less likely to be useful for care provision. The implementation of the tool was challenging for many midwives (40.2%) and some feel their competencies are threatened by the tool (20.7%).
conclusionsThe involvement of maternity care providers in research is crucial for the success of projects, but they face challenges. Implementing a preliminary tool in clinical practice led to dissatisfaction mainly due to lack of time and partial understanding of its purpose. Providing adequate training and supportive leadership can help improve their understanding and satisfaction.
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.