4.5 Article

Fetal movements: What are we telling women

期刊

WOMEN AND BIRTH
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 23-28

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2016.06.001

关键词

Reduced fetal movements; Midwives knowledge; Women's knowledge; Management of reduced fetal movement; Kick counting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Problem: Information that women receive about the importance of monitoring fetal movements and what to do if there are changes is inconsistent and may not be evidence based. Background: This paper reports a summary of the kind of messages a group of South Australian midwives (n = 72) currently give pregnant women. Methods: Comment data from two questions in a larger survey asking (1) what information midwives routinely provide to women about fetal movements and (2) their practice regarding advice they give to women reporting reduced fetal movements. Data were analysed using summative content analysis. Findings: Four main recurring words and phrases were identified. With respect to information midwives give all women about monitoring fetal movements, recurring words were ''10'', ''normal'', ''kick charts'' and ''when to contact'' their care-provider. Recurrent words and phrases arising from answers to the second question about advice midwives give to women reporting reduced fetal movement were ''ask questions,'' ''suggest fluids,'' ''monitor at home and call back'' or ''come in for assessment''. Discussion: These findings suggest that a group of South Australian midwives are providing pregnant women with inconsistent information, often in conflict with best practice evidence. Conclusion: As giving correct, evidence based information about what to do in the event of an episode of reduced fetal movement may be a matter of life or death for the unborn baby it is important that midwives use existing guidelines in order to deliver consistent information which is based on current evidence to women in their care. (C) 2016 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据