ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Intersectional dynamics and care disparities in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring: a socio-technical systems perspective.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Childbirth experience among different Iranian ethnic groups: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntrapartum Electronic Fetal Monitoring interpretation is subjective, variable and dependent on clinical expertise. Electronic Fetal Monitoring is also influenced by human factors, such as the labour ward context, staffing pressures, situational awareness, local protocols, workflow variations, team dynamics, and reporting cultures. This paper explored whether, and how, socio-technical factors may have the potential to contribute to disparities in intrapartum Electronic Fetal Monitoring care and their implications for maternal and neonatal health.
methodsThis study employed an exploratory qualitative design to investigate clinicians' experiences of Electronic Fetal Monitoring. Eighteen semi-structured interviews were undertaken online with midwives, student midwives and obstetricians involved in labour ward care in the UK. Critical Race Feminism and Intersectionality theories shaped the study design and analysis. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsSeven themes were identified under the overarching theme intersectional dynamics in intrapartum Electronic Fetal Monitoring: 1) Social determinants in Electronic Fetal Monitoring interpretation, (2) Disparities in care expectations and decision agency, (3) Cultural influence on decision choices, (4) Disparities in communication, (5) Rationalising Electronic Fetal Monitoring outcomes towards preferred course of action, (6) Stereotypes and bias, and (7) Wider influences of Electronic Fetal Monitoring and labour care.
conclusionsElectronic Fetal Monitoring is a socially and contextually interpreted tool used to support particular interventions or inactions. Electronic Fetal Monitoring management is subject to systematic contextual influences, maternal Social Determinants of Health and biases that may further contribute to disparities in labour care and outcomes. Addressing maternal Social Determinants of Health while providing Electronic Fetal Monitoring care is vital to promoting equitable care, facilitating a positive experience and improving health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.