Dalarna University's logo and link to the university's website

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.