Cited by 55Maternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsReproductive Health and ContraceptionHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes

Swedish couples’ attitudes towards birth, childbirth fear and birth preferences and relation to mode of birth – A longitudinal cohort study

Hildingsson, Ingegerd·2014·Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare

Abstract

Objective Little is known if couples hold similar or different attitudes towards birth or what impact these have on the actual mode of birth. The aim of this study was to compare couples' personal and general attitudes towards birth. An additional aim was to study the relationship between attitudes, birth preferences, and fear of birth in relation to mode of birth.Methods This study is part of a longitudinal cohort study of 1074 pregnant women and their partners recruited during one year in three hospitals in the middle-north part of Sweden. Data was collected by questionnaires. Chi-square test, t-tests and multinominal regression analysis were used in the analyses.Results Women held stronger attitudes about the importance of a safe and less stressful birth for the baby, while their partners were most concerned about the woman's health. Women who preferred a caesarean section and reported childbirth fear often prioritized a safe and stressful birth for themselves, wanted to avoid pain, plan the date, and decide about birth themselves and did not view birth as natural. Some of these attitudes were also found in partners who preferred a caesarean section. Birth preference and fear were strongly associated with mode of birth.Conclusion Special attention should be directed towards parents with a caesarean section preference and parents with childbirth related fear as they have certain attitudes to birth and are more likely to have caesarean section for the birth of the baby.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.srhc.2014.02.002

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hildingsson, I.
Affiliations
Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Hildingsson, Ingegerd
Venue
Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-06
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
75-80
ISSN
1877-5756 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2037048315
Cited by
55
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5
FWCI
6.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Mittuniversitetet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Keywords
fear of childbirth, childbirth preferences, mode of delivery, cesarean section, couples, pregnant women, partners, family planning, birth stress
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Health, Cesarean Section, Choice Behavior, Family Characteristics, Fathers, Fear, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sweden, Women's Health, Elective Surgical Procedures, Parturition, Pregnant People, Young Adult, Patient Preference, Patient Safety

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