Table 2.
Maternal and neonatal outcomes
| Component | Author, year | Measurement method | Statistical method | Data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Childbirth experience | Bergström, 2009 [27] |
Wijma Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire, version A and B |
Mean (SD) by group Mean difference, p-value |
Intervention: 49.6 (26) Control: 50.1 (25) -0.5 (-3.2 to 4.1), 1.0 |
| Duncan, 2017 [19] |
24-item version of the Wijma Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire, T1 3rd Trimester, T2 post intervention, T3 post-birth) |
Mean (SD) by group and timepoints T1-T3 |
Intervention: T1 = 67.1(23.2), T2 = 58.0 (12.2), T3 = 57.1 (13.4) Control: T1 = 65.7 (11.9), T2 = 62.5 (13.0), T3 = 61.6 (23.2) |
|
| Childbirth self-efficacy | Abbasi, 2021, 2018 [17, 18] | Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory (CBSEI) T1 pre intervention, T2 post intervention |
Mean (SD) by group and timepoints T1, T2, p-value Adjusted mean difference with 95% CI, p-value |
Intervention Software: T1 = 141.8 (7.2), T2 = 308.4 (11.3) Intervention Booklet: T1 = 143.3 (7.7), T2 = 262.5 (39.5) Control: T1 = 142.1 (7.5), T2 = 149.1 (23.0) T1 = 0.563, T2 = < 0.001 Software with booklet: T1 = 1.5 (-5.0 to 2.0), 0.574, T2 = 45.9 (33.0 to 58.7), < 0.001 Software with control: T1 = -0.3 (-3.8 to 3.2), 0.981, T2 = 159.3 (146.5 to 172.0), < 0.001 Booklet with control: T1 = 1.2 (-2.3 to 4.7), 0.687, T2 = 113.4 (100.7 to 126.1), < 0.001 |
| Duncan, 2017 [19] | Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory (CBSEI), T1: 3rd Trimester, T2: Post-intervention | Mean (SD) by group and timepoints T1, T2 |
Intervention: T1 = 165.1 (87.2), T2 = 243.3 (41.6) Control: T1 = 197.3 (49.0), T2 = 212.0 (35.4) |
|
| Howarth, 2019 [24] | Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory (CBSEI), T1: 24 weeks gestation, T2: 36 weeks gestation |
Mean (SD) by group T1, T2 Mean difference, p-value |
Intervention: T1 = 188.63, T2 = 215.21 Control: T1 = 194.85, T2 = 190.81 TAU: T1 = 177.59, T2 = 180.61 Intervention with Control: 24.40, 0.021 Intervention with TAU: 34.60, < 0.001 Control with TAU: 10.21, 0.443 |
|
| Pan, 2019 [23] | Chinese Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory (CBSEI-C32), T0 pre intervention, T1 post intervention, T2 follow-up 36 weeks gestation |
Mean (SD) by group p-value B, SE, 95% CI, Wald X, p-value |
Intervention: 229.33 (41.76) Control: 213.91 (44.67) 0.08 Intervention vs. Control: 8.18, 4.52, (-0.67 to 17.03), 3.28, 0.07 T1 vs. T0: 6.88, 5.90, (-4.68 to 18.45), 1.36, 0.24 T2 vs. T0: 1.69, 8.14, (-17.64 to 14.26), 0.04, 0.84 Intervention with T1: 26.38, 10.55 (6.24 to 47.61), 6.51, 0.01 Intervention with T2: 26.92, 9.10 (8.54 to 44.23), 8.40, < 0.001 |
|
| Lenght of labour | Levett, 2016 [25] |
First stage (h,min) Second stage (h,min) Total length of labour (h, min) |
Mean (SD) by group Mean difference with 95% CI Mean (SD) by group Mean difference with 95% CI Mean (SD) by group Mean difference with 95% CI |
Intervention: 6.12 (3.95) Control: 6.53 (3.90) − 0.41 (− 1.79 to 0.98) p = 0.56 Intervention: 1.00 (0.87) Control: 1.32 (0.98) − 0.32 (− 0.64 to 0.002) p = 0.05 Intervention: 7.43 (4.13) Control: 8.20 (4.37) − 0.77 (− 2.26 to 0.72) p = 0.31 |
| Miquelutti, 2013 [26] |
Duration of active phase (min) Duration of delivery (min) |
Mean (SD) by group Mean difference with 95% CI Mean (SD) by group Mean difference with 95% CI |
Intervention: 284.5 (± 175) Control: 254.2 (± 139.4) 30.3 (− 40.9–101.4) Intervention: 29.2 (± 23.3) Control: 19.7 (± 13) 9.48 (0.32–18.64) |
|
| Timm, 1979 [20] | Total length of labour (h, min) | Mean by group |
Intervention: 10.88 Control: 10.06 TAU (no class): 9.19 |
|
| Memory of labour pain | Abbasi, 2021, 2018 [17, 18] | Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 4 stages of cervical dilatation (4,6,8,10) | Mean (SD) by group, SD, p-value |
4 cm: Intervention Software: 2.5 (0.8); Intervention Booklet: 2.6 (0.8); Control: 2.6 (0.8), p = 0.956 6 cm: Intervention Software: 5.2 (0.7), Intervention Booklet: 5.2 (0.5), Control: 5.1 (0.6), p = 0.769 8 cm: Intervention Software: 7.0 (0.8), Intervention Booklet: 7.1 (0.8), Control: 7.1 (0.8), p = 0.811 10 cm: Intervention Software: 8.7 (0.8), Intervention Booklet: 8.8 (0.7), Control: 8.7 (0.7), p = 0.512 |
| Duncan, 2017 [19] | Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 3-4 cm, 4 cm to pushing, during pushing till birth, from birth to delivery of placenta | Average mean score |
Intervention: 5.2 Control: 3.88 |
|
| Bergström, 2009 [27] | 8-point likert scale (no pain to worst pain) | Mean (SD) by group |
Intervention: 4.9 (1.8) Control: 4.9 (1.8) |
|
| Miquelutti, 2013 [26] |
Lumbar pain measured with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at Baseline T0, intermediate T1, final T2 Pelvic pain measured with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at Baseline T0, intermediate T1, final T2 |
Mean (SD) by group Mean difference with 95% CI, n Mean (SD) by group Mean difference with 95% CI, n Mean (SD) by group Mean difference with 95% CI, n Mean (SD) by group Mean difference with 95% CI, n Mean (SD) by group Mean difference with 95% CI, n Mean (SD) by group Mean difference with 95% CI, n |
T0: Intervention: 4.7 ± 2.7 T0: Control: 4.5 ± 2.2 0.23 (− 0.64–1.09), 122 T1: Intervention: 5.1 ± 2.3 T1: Control: 5.1 ± 2.5 0.08 (− 0.86–1.03), 99 T2: Intervention: 5.1 ± 2.3 T2: Control: 4.8 ± 2.5 0.34 (− 0.61–1.28), 102 T0: Intervention: 3.8 ± 2.1 T0: Control: 4.7 ± 2.4 − 0.9 (− 2.49–0.78), 29 T1: Intervention: 4.9 ± 2.7 T1: Control: 5.4 ± 2.3 − 0.47 (− 2.12–1.19), 39 T2: Intervention: 5.5 ± 2.9 T2: Control: 5.9 ± 2.8 − 0.38 (− 2.09–1.33), 44 |
|
| Prince, 2015 [22] | Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) |
Mean (SD) by group Chi-Square, t-test, p-value |
Intervention: 7.0 (1.0) Control: 8.8 (1.3) Χ2 = 335.0, t = 19.65, p = 0.000 |
|
| Use of pain medication | Bergström, 2009 [27] | Epidural rates | N (%) |
Intervention: 247 (52) Control: 252 (52) |
| Duncan, 2017 [19] |
Epidural/spinal anesthesia Opioid analgesia |
N (%) N (%) |
Intervention: 12 (85.7%) Control: 11 (84.6%) Intervention: 4 (30.8%) Control: 8 (61.5%) |
|
| Levett, 2016 [25] | Epidural rates |
N (%) RR with 95% CI, p-value |
Intervention: 21 (23.9%) Control: 57 (68.7%) 0.35 (0.23 to 0.52), p = ≤0.0001 |
|
| Mode of birth | Bergström, 2009 [27] |
Spontaneous vaginal Instrumental Elective caesarean Emergency caesarean |
RR with 95% CI, p-value |
1.0 (0.9 to 1.1), p = 1.0 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6), p = 0.4 0.9 (0.6 to 1.6), p = 0.8 0.9 (0.7 to 1.2), p = 0.5 |
| Levett, 2016 [25] |
Normal vaginal birth C-Section Instrumental |
N (%) RR with 95% CI, p-value |
Intervention: 60 (68.2%) Control: 39 (47.0%) 1.56 (1.12 to 2.17), p = ≤ 0.01 Intervention: 16 (182%) Control:27 (32.5%) 0.52 (0.31 to 0.87), p = 0.017 Intervention:12 (13.6%) Control: 17 (20.5%) |
|
| Miquelutti, 2013 [26] | Vaginal delivery |
N (%) RR (95% CI) |
0.57 (0.30 to 1.09) Intervention: 44 (57.9%) Control: 38 (53.5%) 1.08 (0.81–1.44) |
|
| Apgar score | Levett 2016 [25] | 5th min Apgar score |
N (%) RR with 95% CI, p-value |
Intervention: 3 (3.4) Control: 4 (4.8) 0.99 (0.95 to 1.03), p = 1.03 |
| Miquelutti, 2013 [26] |
1st min Apgar score ≥ 7 5th min Apgar score ≥ 7 |
N (%) RR with 95% CI, p-value N (%) RR with 95% CI, p-value |
Intervention: 70 (93.3%) Control:63 (92.7%) 1.01 (0.92–1.10) Intervention: 75 (100%) Control: 67 (98.5%) 1.01 (0.99–1.04) |
|
| Birth weight | Karkada, 2017 [21] |
Birth weight < 2500 g Birth weight ≥ 2500 g |
N (%) N (%) OR with 95% CI, p-value |
Intervention: 11 (5%), Control: 92 (8%) Intervention: 256 (95%) Control: 229 (92%) 1.389 (0.682–2.833), p = 0.365 |
| Miquelutti, 2013 [26] | Birth weight ≥ 2500 g |
N (%) RR with 95% CI, p-value |
Intervention: 70 (92.1%) Control: 64 (94.1%) 0.98 (0.90–1.07) |