shh.sePublikationer
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Women's experiences of two different self-assessment methods for monitoring fetal movements in full-term pregnancy - a crossover trial
Sophiahemmet University.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9672-7698
Show others and affiliations
2014 (English)In: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, ISSN 1471-2393, Vol. 14, 349- p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background

Low maternal awareness of fetal movements is associated with negative birth outcomes. Knowledge regarding pregnant women's compliance with programs of systematic self-assessment of fetal movements is needed. The aim of this study was to investigate women's experiences using two different self-assessment methods for monitoring fetal movements and to determine if the women had a preference for one or the other method.

Methods

Data were collected by a crossover trial; 40 healthy women with an uncomplicated full-term pregnancy counted the fetal movements according to a Count-to-ten method and assessed the character of the movements according to the Mindfetalness method. Each self-assessment was observed by a midwife and followed by a questionnaire. A total of 80 self-assessments was performed; 40 with each method.

Results

Of the 40 women, only one did not find at least one method suitable. Twenty of the total of 39 reported a preference, 15 for the Mindfetalness method and five for the Count-to-ten method. All 39 said they felt calm, relaxed, mentally present and focused during the observations. Furthermore, the women described the observation of the movements as safe and reassuring and a moment for communication with their unborn baby.

Conclusions

In the 80 assessments all but one of the women found one or both methods suitable for self-assessment of fetal movements and they felt comfortable during the assessments. More women preferred the Mindfetalness method compared to the count-to-ten method, than vice versa.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 14, 349- p.
Keyword [en]
Self-assessment, Fetal movements, Pregnancy, Crossover trial
National Category
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:shh:diva-1704DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-349PubMedID: 25288075OAI: oai:DiVA.org:shh-1704DiVA: diva2:753184
Available from: 2014-10-07 Created: 2014-10-07 Last updated: 2014-12-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(246 kB)32 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT03.pdfFile size 246 kBChecksum SHA-512
63561fd1d98f3aa8d9604200740b0d6332188e3fc53792e3d3d7e19360c48f00b31509108a99274c0f83974ecd7c7626b6cb8efa72f7ebe704077ac836944036
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Rådestad, Ingela
By organisation
Sophiahemmet University
In the same journal
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 34 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 64 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf