Cited by 246Maternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and fetal healthcarePregnancy-related medical research

Preventing traumatic childbirth experiences: 2192 women’s perceptions and views

Open access
Hollander, M. H., van Hastenberg, E., van Dillen, J., van Pampus, M. G., de Miranda, E., Stramrood, C. A. I.·2017·Archives of Women's Mental Health

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore and quantify perceptions and experiences of women with a traumatic childbirth experience in order to identify areas for prevention and to help midwives and obstetricians improve woman-centered care. A retrospective survey was conducted online among 2192 women with a self-reported traumatic childbirth experience. Women were recruited in March 2016 through social media, including specific parent support groups. They filled out a 35-item questionnaire of which the most important items were (1) self-reported attributions of the trauma and how they believe the traumatic experience could have been prevented (2) by the caregivers or (3) by themselves. The responses most frequently given were (1) Lack and/or loss of control (54.6%), Fear for baby's health/life (49.9%), and High intensity of pain/physical discomfort (47.4%); (2) Communicate/explain (39.1%), Listen to me (more) (36.9%), and Support me (more/better) emotionally/practically (29.8%); and (3) Nothing (37.0%), Ask for (26.9%), or Refuse (16.5%) certain interventions. Primiparous participants chose High intensity of pain/physical discomfort, Long duration of delivery, and Discrepancy between expectations and reality more often and Fear for own health/life, A bad outcome, and Delivery went too fast less often than multiparous participants. Women attribute their traumatic childbirth experience primarily to lack and/or loss of control, issues of communication, and practical/emotional support. They believe that in many cases, their trauma could have been reduced or prevented by better communication and support by their caregiver or if they themselves had asked for or refused interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00737-017-0729-6

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hollander, M. H., van Hastenberg, E., van Dillen, J., van Pampus, M. G., de Miranda, E., & Stramrood, C. A. I.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Corresponding author
Hollander, M. H.
Venue
Archives of Women's Mental Health
Published
2017-05-29
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
515-523
ISSN
  • 1434-1816 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-1102
OpenAlex
W2617617703
Cited by
245
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 1
FWCI
17.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Women s Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Radboud University Medical Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
Keywords
traumatic birth, childbirth experience, women's perceptions, loss of control, labor pain, caregiver communication, emotional support, primiparous women, multiparous women, woman-centred care, childbirth interventions
MeSH terms
Adult, Fear, Female, Humans, Mothers, Netherlands, Perception, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Parturition, Delivery, Obstetric, Labor Pain, Postpartum Period

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review