ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Evaluation of the relationship between birth beliefs and readiness for childbirth in pregnant women: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPregnancy and childbirth is a multifaceted experience for women that has physical, emotional and cultural dimensions as well as biological ones. Women may sometimes perceive birth as a meaningful and transformative process and sometimes as a medical necessity to be completed. Therefore, understanding beliefs about birth and readiness levels during pregnancy is important for individualizing midwifery care and planning appropriate counseling. This study was conducted to determine the relationship between birth beliefs and birth readiness levels of pregnant women.
methodsThis descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted between October and December 2022 in a public maternity hospital in the capital of Turkey. The sample size was calculated with a 95% confidence level and a 3% margin of error, and 1000 pregnant women who met the inclusion criteria and voluntarily participated in the study were included in the study. Data were collected using a personal information form, Birth Beliefs Scale and Preparation for Labor Subscale administered by face-to-face interview method. Descriptive statistics (percentage, mean, SD) and inferential tests (independent t-test, ANOVA, and Kruskal-Wallis) were used.
resultsThe mean age of the participants was 28.0 ± 5.0 years, most of them were not working and half of them were primipara. Of the pregnant women, 67.6% preferred vaginal delivery and 32.4% preferred cesarean section. The belief in natural process was higher in those who preferred vaginal delivery and the belief in medical process was higher in those who preferred cesarean section. Birth readiness levels of pregnant women who preferred cesarean section were significantly higher. In addition, a positive correlation was found between natural process belief and readiness (r = 0.312, p < 0.001).
conclusionsAs a result of this study, a positive and weak relationship was found between 'Natural Process' belief and birth readiness. In addition, pregnant women who preferred cesarean section had a higher level of readiness, suggesting the effect of the preference for planability and controlled process. The findings suggest that it may be useful to evaluate women's beliefs about birth in pregnancy care and to structure counseling by considering these individual differences.
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.