Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sociodemographic differences in women’s experience of early labour care: a mixed methods study

Henderson, Jane, Redshaw, Maggie·2017·BMJ Open
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016351PMC PMC5541638
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives: To explore women’s experiences of early labour care focusing on sociodemographic differences, and to examine the effect of antenatal education, using mixed methods. Setting: England, 2014. Participants: Women who completed postal questionnaires about their experience of maternity care, including questions about antenatal education, early labour and sociodemographic factors, included space for free-text comments. Outcome measures: Worries about labour, contact with midwives in early labour and subsequent care. Methods: This study was based on secondary analysis of a national maternity survey carried out in England in 2014. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression; qualitative data were analysed using a thematic content analytic approach. Results: Completed questionnaires were received from 4578 women (47% response rate). There were significant differences by sociodemographic factors, particularly ethnicity, in women’s worries about early labour. Compared with white women, women from black or minority ethnic groups had an adjusted OR of 1.93 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.39) of feeling worried about not knowing when labour would start. Among women who contacted a midwife at the start of labour, 84% perceived their advice as appropriate, more in older and multiparous women. Overall, 64% of women were asked to come to the hospital at this time, more in multiparous women (adjusted OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.96). Those who did not have access to antenatal education experienced greater worry about early labour. Five themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: ‘Differentiating between early and active labour’, ‘Staff attitudes’, ‘Not being allowed…’, ‘Previous labours’ and ‘Perceived consequences for women’. Conclusion: These findings reinforce the importance of providing reassurance to women in early labour, taking care that women do not feel neglected or dismissed. In particular, primiparous and ethnic minority women reported greater worry about early labour and require additional reassurance.

Overview

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016351

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Numbers and proportions of women contacting midwife or hospital at the start of labour and resulting care (of the 3099 women who had neither induction of labour nor a planned caesarean section before the start of labour).
Figure 1 Numbers and proportions of women contacting midwife or hospital at the start of labour and resulting care (of the 3099 women who had neither induction of labour nor a planned caesarean section before the start of labour).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 10.1016/S0306-5456(01)00265-0 · DOI

Cited by

See all 16

Metadata

Authors
Henderson, J., & Redshaw, M.
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-07
Volume
7
Issue
7
Pages
e016351
ISSN
2044-6055
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016351
PMC
PMC5541638
Cited by
16
References
37
Language
en
Funders
Department of Health

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.