ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Women's perspectives on fetal movement monitoring in high and low stillbirth settings: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. 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.
- Women's perspectives on fetal movement monitoring in high and low stillbirth settings: a mixed-methods study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
backgroundMaternal fetal movement monitoring during pregnancy is commonly advised to assess fetal wellbeing. However, qualitative research exploring how women perceive and implement such advice is lacking, particularly in regions with the highest burden of stillbirth. This study investigates women's experiences of, and opinions on fetal movement monitoring during pregnancy across both high and low stillbirth rate settings.
methodsA convergent parallel mixed-methods design was used to explore women's perspectives on fetal movement monitoring. Participants (n = 234) from three low stillbirth rate countries and five high stillbirth rate countries were recruited through social media advertisements using non-probability self-selection between December 2024 and April 2025. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected with an online survey (n = 234) and follow-up semi-structured interviews (n = 15). Survey responses and interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis and non-parametric statistics.
findingsThe nature and extent of fetal movement monitoring advice varied considerably by country, encompassing active monitoring methods including kick counting, pattern awareness and movement presence detection, as well as guidance on responding to fetal movement concerns. Notably, 33% (37/112) of women in high-stillbirth countries and 8% (10/122) in low-stillbirth countries reported a lack of any fetal movement monitoring advice. Globally, half of women rated the advice easy to follow, while one-third experienced difficulty understanding their healthcare provider's guidance. Key facilitators of following advice included having an active baby and a clear understanding and confidence in the advice, whereas barriers included a lack of clarity and understanding, difficulty perceiving movements, competing time demands, and challenges in identifying patterns of movements. Maternal anxiety was particularly prevalent, with 78% of participants reporting at least occasional anxiety about fetal movements during pregnancy.
conclusionWide variation in the type and consistency of fetal movement monitoring advice across countries indicates the need for further research into the effectiveness of current recommendations, particularly in settings with high stillbirth rates. High rates of maternal anxiety worldwide highlight the importance of providing support to women navigating fetal movement monitoring.
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.