CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 129Maternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsPediatric Pain Management TechniquesAnesthesia and Pain Management

Women׳s experiences of coping with pain during childbirth: A critical review of qualitative research

Open access
Van der Gucht, Natalie, Lewis, Kiara·2015·Midwifery
DOI 10.1016/j.midw.2014.12.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective to identify and analyse qualitative literature exploring women's experiences of coping with pain during childbirth.Design critical review of qualitative research.Findings ten studies were included, conducted in Australia, England, Finland, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran and Sweden. Eight of the studies employed a phenomenological perspective with the remaining two without a specific qualitative methodological perspective. Thematic analysis was used as the approach for synthesising the data in this review. Two main themes emerged as the most significant influences upon a woman's ability to cope with pain: (i) the importance of individualised, continuous support and (ii) an acceptance of pain during childbirth. This review found that women felt vulnerable during childbirth and valued the relationships they had with health professionals. Many of the women perceived childbirth pain as challenging, however, they described the inherent paradox for the need for pain to birth their child. This allowed them to embrace the pain subsequently enhancing their coping ability.Key conclusions women's experience of coping with pain during childbirth is complex and multifaceted. Many women felt the need for effective support throughout childbirth and described the potential implications where this support failed to be provided. Feeling safe through the concept of continuous support was a key element of care to enhance the coping ability and avoid feelings of loneliness and fear. A positive outlook and acceptance of pain was acknowledged by many of the women, demonstrating the beneficial implications for coping ability. These findings were consistent despite the socio-economic, cultural and contextual differences observed within the studies suggesting that experiences of coping with pain during childbirth are universal.Implications for practice the findings suggest there is a dissonance between what women want in order to enhance their ability to cope with pain and the reality of clinical practice. This review found women would like health professionals to maintain a continuous presence throughout childbirth and support a social model of care that promotes continuity of care and an increasing acceptance of pain as part of normal childbirth. It is suggested future research regarding the role of antenatal provision for instilling such a viewpoint in preparation of birth be undertaken to inform policy makers. The need for a shift in societal norms is also suggested to disseminate expectations and positive or negative views of what the role of pain during childbirth should be to empower women to cope with childbirth and embrace this transition to motherhood as part of a normal process.

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 · 10.1016/j.midw.2014.12.005

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • Sensitive language is key to a positive birth experience for women giving birth and may increase women's ability to cope and to 'avoid feelings of loneliness and fear', which is vital at this difficult time and may have a long‐term impact on psychological health if misused.

    “Sensitive language is key to a positive birth experience for women giving birth (blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/02/08/humanising‐birth‐does‐the‐language‐we‐use‐matter; accessed 28 June 2019), and may increase women’s ability to cope and to ‘avoid feelings of loneliness and fear’,9 which is vital at this difficult time and may have a long‐term impact on psychological health if misused.”

    From Parents’ experiences of care following the loss of a baby at the margins between miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death: a UK qualitative study (2020) · cites this paper as [9]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Dixon-Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Roberts, K., 2001. Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 7(2) 125-133.
  2. Mays, N., Pope, J., 2007. Synthesising Qualitative and Quantitative Health Research. Open University Press: Buckinghamshire.
  3. Munro, J., Jokinen, M., Gerrard, J., Shewes, J., 2012. The Royal College of Midwives (RCM) Manual for producing midwifery practice guidelines. RCM. London National Institute for Clinical Excellence 2007. Intrapartum Care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. London: RCOG Press
  4. Noyes, J., Lewin, S., 2011. Chapter 6: Supplemental guidance on selecting a method of qualitative evidence synthesis, and integrating qualitative evidence with Cochrane intervention reviews. In: Noyes, J., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Harden, A., Harris, J., Lewin, S. and Lockwood, C. (Eds). Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1. Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group.
  5. Petticrew, M., Roberts, H., 2006. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.
  6. Walsh, D., 2012. Evidence and Skills for Normal Labour and Birth. 2nd Ed. Routledge, London.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Van der Gucht, N., & Lewis, K.
Affiliations
University of Huddersfield (GB)
ORCID
Lewis, Kiara
Venue
Midwifery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
349-358
ISSN
0266-6138 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.midw.2014.12.005
OpenAlex
W2066728228
Cited by
129
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Midwifery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Repository (University of Gloucestershire) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Huddersfield Repository (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion)
  • Huddersfield Research Portal (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
labor pain, pain coping, women's experiences, continuous support, pain acceptance, social model of care, continuity of care, antenatal preparation, normal birth, transition to motherhood
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Attitude to Health, Female, Humans, Mothers, Pain, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Women's Health, Qualitative Research, Labor Pain

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