ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
Rating of overall childbirth experience: A qualitative study of a quantitative measurement.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rating of overall childbirth experience: A qualitative study of a quantitative measurement.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOverall childbirth experience scores are used both in research and in clinical settings. Since it is still not fully understood what assessment of childbirth experience on a single-item numeric rating scale or visual analog scale represents, the aim of this study was to explore women's reasoning and thoughts when rating overall childbirth experience numerically. MATERIAL AND
methodsA qualitative interview study of 26 women was conducted using a think-aloud technique at a university referral hospital in Sweden. A manifest qualitative content analysis was performed to generate categories and sub-categories representing how women decided which single value should represent their experience of giving birth.
resultsTwo main categories emerged from the analysis. The first, Strategies for choosing a number, reflects variations in how the women approached the rating scale itself and includes five sub-categories, each relating to a different strategy: (1) Comparison, (2) Start from the maximum value, (3) Start from the middle, (4) Weigh certain experiences more heavily, and (5) A means to an end. The second category, Specific factors considered in the rating, includes four sub-categories, representing groups of factors contributing to the final childbirth experience score: (1) The time period, (2) Events linked to strong emotions, (3) Perceived support, and (4) Previous expectations. What the women included in their overall childbirth experience was hence translated into a number, using strategies from the first category and factors from the second category.
conclusionsThe considerable variations in how women approach the rating scale, and what they include in the assessment of overall childbirth experience, suggest that not only the childbirth experience itself but also the reasoning when evaluating it, is multifaceted. A standardized phrasing of the question and a clear purpose for the evaluation is warranted to strengthen the validity of the measurement. When used clinically for identifying women in need of support after childbirth, the rating should be followed by a conversation about the experience of giving birth, independent of the value chosen.
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.