Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40361027›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025

Differences in women's experiences of labour according to type of fetal monitoring: a quantitative analysis of an Australian national survey.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Kate M LevettSchool of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, Australia. kate.levett@nd.edu.au.
Deborah FoxCollective for Midwifery, Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Panashe BamhareWestern Sydney Area Health Service, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Rebecca CoddingtonCollective for Midwifery, Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Kerry L SutcliffeSchool of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Elizabeth NewnhamSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Vanessa ScarfCollective for Midwifery, Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

Maridulu Budyari Gumal Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise (SPHERE) Maternal, Newborn and Women's Clinical Academic Group N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introWhile monitoring of the fetal heart rate in labour is recommended, few studies have compared women's experiences of different forms of monitoring technologies, their impact on labour and perceived risks and benefits.

methodsThe Women's experiences of Monitoring Baby (WOMB) study, an Australian national survey, examined experiences of intrapartum fetal monitoring in labour. This study is one of two quantitative analyses of survey responses received.

resultsWe received 861 valid responses. The most common form of monitoring across all hospital settings was wired CTG (53% of total). Women who used wired CTG were more likely to be primiparous (OR = 3.220, [95%CI:2.080-4.987], p < 0.001), and give birth at a private hospital (OR = 3.017 [95%CI:1.632-5.576], p < 0.001). Women who were monitored via wired CTG were more likely to use pharmacological pain management, and have an emergency caesarean section (p < 0.001), which remained significant when adjusting for epidural. Women who gave birth vaginally were more likely to have been monitored via intermittent auscultation (OR = 3.582, [95%CI:2.007-6.390], p < 0.001), and to use non-pharmacological techniques such as mobility (p < 0.001) and supportive care (p < 0.01). Of the women monitored via wired CTG 58% felt that monitoring had a negative impact on their labour.

conclusionThis study has substantial implications for research, policy and practice, including the implementation of less invasive and more humanised forms of fetal monitoring. The promotion of freedom of movement and bodily autonomy in labour is essential. This includes implementation of evidence-based practices and information about methods of fetal monitoring that support woman-centred care and optimise physiological processes.

Indexed as

CardiotocographyFetal MonitoringLabor, ObstetricAdultAustraliaCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHeart Rate, FetalHumansPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAntenatal educationElectronic fetal monitoringFetal monitoringMaternal experienceMaternal healthMaternity care

Identifiers

PMID40361027
PMCPMC12076947

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.