Jocelyn Toohill

Prevalence of childbirth fear in an Australian sample of pregnant women

BackgroundChildbirth fear is reported to affect around 20% of women. However reporting on levels of symptom severity vary. Unlike Scandinavian countries, there has been limited focus on childbirth fear in Australia. The aim of this paper is to determine the prevalence of low, moderate, high and severe levels of childbirth fear in a large representative sample of pregnant women drawn from a large randomised controlled trial and identify demographic and obstetric characteristics associated with childbirth fear.MethodUsing a descriptive cross-sectional design, 1,410 women in their second trimester were recruited from one of three public hospitals in south-east Queensland. Participants were screened for childbirth fear using the Wijma Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire Version A (WDEQ-A). Associations of demographic and obstetric factors and levels of childbirth fear between nulliparous and multiparous women were investigated.ResultsPrevalence of childbirth fear was 24% overall, with 31.5% of nulliparous women reporting high levels of fear (score ≥66 on the WDEQ-A) compared to 18% of multiparous women. Childbirth fear was associated with paid employment, parity, and mode of last birth, with higher levels of fear in first time mothers (p < 0.001) and in women who had previously had an operative birth (p < 0.001).ConclusionPrevalence of childbirth fear in Australian women was comparable to international rates. Significant factors associated with childbirth fear were being in paid employment, and obstetric characteristics such as parity and birth mode in the previous pregnancy. First time mothers had higher levels of fear than women who had birthed before. A previous operative birth was fear provoking. Experiencing a previous normal birth was protective of childbirth fear.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Psycho-Education Intervention by Midwives in Reducing Childbirth Fear in Pregnant Women

Background Childbirth fear is associated with increased obstetric interventions and poor emotional and psychological health for women. The purpose of this study is to test an antenatal psycho-education intervention by midwives in reducing womens childbirth fear. Methods Women (n = 1,410) attending three hospitals in South East Queensland, Australia, were recruited into the BELIEF trial. Participants reporting high fear were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 170) or control (n = 169) groups. All women received a decision-aid booklet on childbirth choices. The telephone counseling intervention was offered at 24 and 34 weeks of pregnancy. The control group received usual care offered by public maternity services. Primary outcome was reduction in childbirth fear (WDEQ-A) from second trimester to 36 weeks’ gestation. Secondary outcomes were improved childbirth self-efficacy, and reduced decisional conflict and depressive symptoms. Demographic, obstetric & psychometric measures were administered at recruitment, and 36 weeks of pregnancy. Results There were significant differences between groups on postintervention scores for fear of birth (p < 0.001) and childbirth self-efficacy (p = 0.002). Decisional conflict and depressive symptoms reduced but were not significant. Conclusion Psycho-education by trained midwives was effective in reducing high childbirth fear levels and increasing childbirth confidence in pregnant women. Improving antenatal emotional well-being may have wider positive social and maternity care implications for optimal childbirth experiences.

Identifying women who are afraid of giving birth: A comparison of the fear of birth scale with the WDEQ-A in a large Australian cohort

BACKGROUND The WDEQ-A is the most widely used measure of childbirth fear in pregnant women; however there is increasing discussion in the literature that simpler, more culturally transferrable tools may offer a better solution to identifying fearful women in clinical practice. AIM To compare the two item Fear of Birth Scale (FOBS) with the 33 item WDEQ-A in a large cohort of Australian pregnant women. METHOD Self-report questionnaires during second trimester including Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire (WDEQ-A) and Fear of Birth Scale (FOBS). Correlation of FOBS and WDEQ-A was tested using Spearmans correlation coefficients. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve assessed the sensitivity and specificity of possible cut-points on the FOBS against WDEQ-A cut-point of ≥85. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were determined. Fearful and non-fearful women as classified by both instruments were compared for differences in demographic, psycho-social and obstetric characteristics. RESULTS 1410 women participated. The correlation between the instruments was strong (Spearmans Rho = 0.66, p < 0.001). The area under the ROC was 0.89 indicating high sensitivity with a FOBS cut-point of 54. Sensitivity was 89%, specificity 79% and Youden index 0.68. Positive predictive value was 85% and negative predictive value 79%. Both instruments identified high fear as significantly associated with first time mothers, previous emergency caesarean and women with self-reported anxiety and/or depression. Additionally FOBS identified a significant association between fearful women and preference for caesarean. CONCLUSION This study supports the use of the FOBS in clinical practice to identify childbirth fear in pregnant women.

Sources, responses and moderators of childbirth fear in Australian women: A qualitative investigation

BACKGROUND around 20% of women suffer childbirth fear causing them significant distress and often leading to requests for caesarean section. In Sweden, fearful pregnant women are offered counselling; however, in Australia, no dedicated service caters for the specific needs of these women. Indeed scant research has been conducted in Australia and little is known about womens concerns and if these align to those reported in the international literature. AIM to describe the sources, responses and moderators of childbirth fear in a group of pregnant women assessed as having high levels of childbirth fear. METHOD comparative analysis was used to identify common concepts and generate themes that represented womens perspectives of childbirth fear. Data consisted of 43 tape recorded telephone conversations with highly fearful pregnant women who were participating in a large randomised controlled trial known as BELIEF (Birth Emotions, Looking to Improve Expectant Fear). FINDINGS womens fears were conceptualised into three themes: fear stimuli; fear responses; and fear moderators. Lack of confidence to birth, fear of the unknown, internalising other womens negative stories, perineal tearing and labour pain were common concerns for first time mothers. For multiparous women, not having had personal feelings resolved following their previous birth and negative experiences of last birth influenced current expectations for their upcoming birth. Themes common to both groups were: unmet information and support needs, feelings of loss of control and lack of input in to decision-making. Some women however, chose to avoid birth planning in order to cope during pregnancy. CONCLUSION Australian women had similar childbirth concerns to those reported in the international literature. However unique to this study was finding two opposing discourses; one of preoccupation with negative events and the other; avoidance of planning for labour and birth. Provision of woman centred maternity models that minimise obstetric intervention, offer personalised conversations following birth, and are sensitive to identifying; listening and assisting women to modify their fears in early pregnancy are required to promote positive anticipation and preparation for birth.

A non-randomised trial investigating the cost-effectiveness of Midwifery Group Practice compared with standard maternity care arrangements in one Australian hospital

OBJECTIVE to compare cost-effectiveness of two models of maternity service delivery: Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) at a birth centre and standard care (SC). DESIGN a prospective non-randomised trial. SETTING an Australian metropolitan hospital. METHOD women at 36 weeks gestation were approached in the birth centre or hospital antenatal clinics between March and December 2008. Of 170 consecutive women who met birth centre eligibility criteria, 70% (n=119) were recruited to the study. Women (MGP n=52 or standard care n=50) were followed through to 6 weeks postpartum. Publically funded care costs were collected from womens diaries, handheld pregnancy health records, medical records and the hospital accounting system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES health-care costs to the hospital and government. ANALYSIS generalised linear models with covariates of age, nulliparity, private health insurance (yes/no) and household income category. FINDINGS women receiving MGP care were less likely to experience induction of labour, required fewer antenatal visits, received more postnatal care, and neonates were less likely to be admitted to special care nursery than those receiving standard care. Statistically significant lower costs were found for women and babies receiving MGP care compared with women receiving standard care during pregnancy, labour and birth and postpartum to 6 weeks. MGP resulted in lower costs for the hospital (

How pregnant women learn about foetal movements: Sources and preferences for information

AUD4,696 vs.

Effects of a midwife psycho-education intervention to reduce childbirth fear on women’s birth outcomes and postpartum psychological wellbeing

AUD5,521 p<0.001) and the government (

Assessment of the dimensionality of the Wijma delivery expectancy/experience questionnaire using factor analysis and Rasch analysis

AUD4,722 vs.

A cross-sectional study to determine utility of childbirth fear screening in maternity practice - An Australian perspective

AUD5,641 p<0.001). When baby costs were excluded MGP care remained statistically significantly cheaper than standard care. CONCLUSION for women at low-risk of birth complications, Midwifery Group Practice was cost effective, and women experienced fewer obstetric interventions compared with standard maternity care. The evidence suggests Midwifery Group Practice is safe and economically viable.

Factors influencing midwives’ use of an evidenced based Normal Birth Guideline

BACKGROUND Unexplained late gestation stillbirth is a significant health issue. Antenatal information about foetal movements has been demonstrated to reduce the stillbirth rate in women with decreased foetal movements. Midwives are ideally placed to provide this information to women. AIM To investigate pregnant womens perceptions of information about foetal movements and preferences for receiving information. METHODS This prospective, descriptive study was conducted in the antenatal clinic of a large metropolitan maternity hospital. FINDINGS Pregnant women (n=526) at 34 weeks gestation or later were recruited. Only 67% of women reported receiving information about foetal movements. Women reported that midwives (80%), family (57%), friends (48%) and own mother (48%) provided this information. Midwives were the most preferred source of information. Around half (52%) of the women used the internet for information but only 11% nominated the web as their preferred information source. CONCLUSION Women prefer to be given as much information about foetal movements as possible. Women favour information from health professionals, mainly from a midwife. Midwives are well-placed to partner with pregnant women and give them unbiased and evidenced based information enabling them to make decisions and choices regarding their health and well-being. While the internet is a prevalent information source, women want to be reassured that it is trustworthy and want direction to reliable pregnancy related websites.