Women's experiences of two different self-assessment methods for monitoring fetal movements in full-term pregnancy - a crossover trial
(2014) In BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 14(1).- Abstract
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... (More)
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.
(Less)
- author
- Malm, Mari Cristin ; Rådestad, Ingela ; Rubertsson, Christine LU ; Hildingsson, Ingegerd and Lindgren, Helena
- publishing date
- 2014-10-07
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- keywords
- Crossover trial, Fetal movements, Pregnancy, Self-assessment
- in
- BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
- volume
- 14
- issue
- 1
- article number
- 349
- publisher
- BioMed Central (BMC)
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:25288075
- scopus:84908072656
- ISSN
- 1471-2393
- DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2393-14-349
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- b60f3b59-5848-445b-9d0e-d2444a0c78d4
- date added to LUP
- 2017-10-27 13:53:38
- date last changed
- 2024-01-14 08:30:52
@article{b60f3b59-5848-445b-9d0e-d2444a0c78d4,
abstract = {{<p>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.</p>}},
author = {{Malm, Mari Cristin and Rådestad, Ingela and Rubertsson, Christine and Hildingsson, Ingegerd and Lindgren, Helena}},
issn = {{1471-2393}},
keywords = {{Crossover trial; Fetal movements; Pregnancy; Self-assessment}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{10}},
number = {{1}},
publisher = {{BioMed Central (BMC)}},
series = {{BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth}},
title = {{Women's experiences of two different self-assessment methods for monitoring fetal movements in full-term pregnancy - a crossover trial}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-349}},
doi = {{10.1186/1471-2393-14-349}},
volume = {{14}},
year = {{2014}},
}