du.sePublications
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
Dalarna University, School of Education, Health and Social Studies, Caring Science/Nursing.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7385-5649
Sophiahemmet Högskola.
Kvinnor och Barns Hälsa, Uppsala Universitet.
Sahlgrenska Akademin, Göteborgs Universitet.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)Conference paper, (Refereed)
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.

 

Aim: To study 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: One of the 40 participants did not find at least one method for monitoring fetal movements suitable. Twenty of the total of 39 reported a preference, fifteen of the 39 participants reported a preference for the Mindfetalness method and five for the Count-to-ten method. The women described the observation of the movements as a safe and reassuring moment for communication with their unborn baby. They said they felt calm, relaxed, and mentally present and focused during the observations.

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.

 

Clinical implications: For women who prefer systematic self-assessment methods of their unborn baby’s movements, both Count-to-ten and Mindfetalness can be presented as options. However, the methods need to be better evaluated concerning their potential to prevent pre-hospital delay when the unborn baby’s health is at stake before they can be implemented in antenatal care as a routine.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
the Canadian Association of Midwives (CAM) , 2017.
Keyword [en]
Crossover trial, Fetal movements, Pregnacy, Self-assessment
National Category
Health Sciences
Research subject
Health and Welfare; Health and Welfare, Mammors erfarenheter och beskrivning av sitt barns rörelser i livmodern
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:du-25613OAI: oai:DiVA.org:du-25613DiVA: diva2:1127734
Conference
31st ICM Triennial Congress, Toronto, Canada, 18-22 June 2017
Projects
Fetal Movements in late Pregnancy Categorization, Self-assessment, and Prenatal Attachment in relation to women’s experiences.
Available from: 2017-07-18 Created: 2017-07-18 Last updated: 2017-07-26Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

http://www.midwives2017.org/scientific-programme

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Malm, Mari-Cristin
By organisation
Caring Science/Nursing
Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 18 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