Identifying fear of childbirth in a UK population: qualitative examination of the clarity and acceptability of existing measurement tools in a small UK sample.
Antenatal anxiety
Anxiety measure
Childbirth anxiety
Fear of childbirth
Tokophobia
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Sep 2020
22 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
28
10
2019
accepted:
14
09
2020
entrez:
23
9
2020
pubmed:
24
9
2020
medline:
8
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fear of childbirth is related to but not synonymous with general anxiety, and represents a superior predictor for maternal and infant outcomes. There is a need to improve the identification and provision of support for women experiencing high fear of childbirth. However it is uncertain as to whether existing measurement tools have appropriate content validity (i.e. cover the relevant domains within the construct), practical utility, and whether they are acceptable for use with a UK population. This study aimed to (1) identify the utility and acceptability of existing measures of fear of childbirth (FOC) with a small UK sample and (2) map the content of existing measures to the key concepts of fear of childbirth established by previous research. Ten pregnant women; five with high and five with low fear of childbirth participated in a cognitive interview covering four most commonly used measures of fear of childbirth: 1. The Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire (WDEQ A), 2. The Oxford Worries about Labour Scale (OWLS), 3. The Slade-Pais Expectations of Childbirth Scale - fear subscale (SPECS) and 4. The Fear of Birth scale (FOBS). Each measure was also reviewed by participants for ease and clarity of understanding and acceptability. The measures were then reviewed against the key domains identified in the fear of childbirth literature to ascertain the adequacy of content validity of each measure. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis for each scale item. All measures except the FOBS, included items that either women did not understand or, if where there was understanding the meanings were inconsistent across women. All measures demonstrated limited acceptability and content validity for the specific construct of FOC. Therefore, none of the measurement tools currently used within the UK met criteria for understanding, acceptability and content validity for measurement of FOC. Findings emphasise a need to develop a specific fear of childbirth tool with good clarity which demonstrates appropriate content validity, and that is acceptable in presentation and length for pregnant women in a UK population.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Fear of childbirth is related to but not synonymous with general anxiety, and represents a superior predictor for maternal and infant outcomes. There is a need to improve the identification and provision of support for women experiencing high fear of childbirth. However it is uncertain as to whether existing measurement tools have appropriate content validity (i.e. cover the relevant domains within the construct), practical utility, and whether they are acceptable for use with a UK population. This study aimed to (1) identify the utility and acceptability of existing measures of fear of childbirth (FOC) with a small UK sample and (2) map the content of existing measures to the key concepts of fear of childbirth established by previous research.
METHODS
METHODS
Ten pregnant women; five with high and five with low fear of childbirth participated in a cognitive interview covering four most commonly used measures of fear of childbirth: 1. The Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire (WDEQ A), 2. The Oxford Worries about Labour Scale (OWLS), 3. The Slade-Pais Expectations of Childbirth Scale - fear subscale (SPECS) and 4. The Fear of Birth scale (FOBS). Each measure was also reviewed by participants for ease and clarity of understanding and acceptability. The measures were then reviewed against the key domains identified in the fear of childbirth literature to ascertain the adequacy of content validity of each measure. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis for each scale item.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All measures except the FOBS, included items that either women did not understand or, if where there was understanding the meanings were inconsistent across women. All measures demonstrated limited acceptability and content validity for the specific construct of FOC. Therefore, none of the measurement tools currently used within the UK met criteria for understanding, acceptability and content validity for measurement of FOC.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Findings emphasise a need to develop a specific fear of childbirth tool with good clarity which demonstrates appropriate content validity, and that is acceptable in presentation and length for pregnant women in a UK population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32962652
doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03249-4
pii: 10.1186/s12884-020-03249-4
pmc: PMC7510144
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
553Subventions
Organisme : Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group
ID : 2017
Références
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003 Mar;82(3):201-8
pubmed: 12694113
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Mar 18;19(1):96
pubmed: 30885153
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2018 Jun;16:98-112
pubmed: 29804785
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998 May;77(5):542-7
pubmed: 9654177
Women Birth. 2016 Jun;29(3):e44-9
pubmed: 26710973
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(7):807-13
pubmed: 19488882
BJOG. 2012 Sep;119(10):1238-46
pubmed: 22734617
Qual Life Res. 2003 May;12(3):229-38
pubmed: 12769135
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2015 Dec;6(4):204-10
pubmed: 26614602
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Aug 14;14:275
pubmed: 25123448
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014 Apr;93(4):408-15
pubmed: 24575805
Psychol Health Med. 2009 May;14(3):354-66
pubmed: 19444713
J Psychosom Res. 2019 Jan;116:37-43
pubmed: 30654992
J Clin Nurs. 2009 Mar;18(5):667-77
pubmed: 19239535
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Jun;33(2):62-77
pubmed: 22554138
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Jan 12;18(1):28
pubmed: 29329526
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012 Feb;91(2):237-42
pubmed: 22085403
Midwifery. 2011 Aug;27(4):560-7
pubmed: 20598787
Midwifery. 2014 Feb;30(2):145-8
pubmed: 24365717
Schizophr Bull. 2013 May;39(3):583-91
pubmed: 22328641
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2011 Sep;32(3):160-3
pubmed: 21506662
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Aug;96(8):907-920
pubmed: 28369672
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2014 Jun;5(2):75-80
pubmed: 24814442
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907
pubmed: 29937585
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Jun;19(2):84-97
pubmed: 9638601
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2016 Jan-Feb;45(1):28-38
pubmed: 26815796
Birth. 2018 Dec;45(4):469-477
pubmed: 29630751
Br J Psychiatry. 2000 Jan;176:83-5
pubmed: 10789333
BJOG. 2002 Nov;109(11):1213-21
pubmed: 12452457
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012 Jun 24;12:55
pubmed: 22727217
Arch Womens Ment Health. 2012 Jun;15(3):203-9
pubmed: 22526406