ArticleBMC nursing2026
Balancing safety and comfort in childbirth: a grounded theory of labor progress assessment among frontline obstetric healthcare providers.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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.
- Gender-inclusive and comfort-centered childbirth care: Implications for midwifery education and labor assessment training.Atencion primaria · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDuring labor, both invasive and noninvasive assessments are performed to track progress. Invasive methods are more commonly employed in clinical settings but uncomfortable for women, whereas noninvasive assessments are less frequently used but more comfortable. This study aimed to understand the evolving processes of labor progress assessment conducted by frontline obstetricians, registered nurses, and practicing midwives during the labor process.
methodsThis study adopted a qualitative design based on Straussian grounded theory. Participants included obstetricians, registered nurses, and midwives from northern, central, and southern Taiwan. A total of 33 participants (21 healthcare workers and 12 midwives) were recruited through theoretical sampling until data saturation was reached. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using constant comparative analysis.
resultsAnalysis revealed that labor progress assessment by frontline healthcare providers comprised six interrelated categories: “React,” “Rapport,” “Record,” “Readjust,” “Rudimentary,” and “Rebuild”, integrated by a core category, “Balancing Safety and Comfort to Achieve Holistic Health in Childbirth.” These categories illustrate how healthcare workers and midwives continuously adjust assessment strategies in response to women’s physiological and behavioral cues, clinical documentation requirements, and situational demands during labor.
conclusionLabor progress assessment practices are shaped by professional education, training philosophies, clinical experience, and underlying perspectives on childbirth held by both midwives and obstetric healthcare workers. The proposed model provides a conceptual framework that may support reflection on current assessment practices, contribute to reducing reliance on routine invasive examinations, and facilitate dialogue between midwives and obstetric professionals regarding the integration of non-invasive assessment approaches in clinical care. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.