Definitions, measurements and prevalence of fear of childbirth: a systematic review

Background

Fear of Childbirth (FOC) is a common problem affecting women’s health and wellbeing, and a common reason for requesting caesarean section. The aims of this review were to summarise published research on prevalence of FOC in childbearing women and how it is defined and measured during pregnancy and postpartum, and to search for useful measures of FOC, for research as well as for clinical settings.

Methods

Five bibliographic databases in March 2015 were searched for published research on FOC, using a protocol agreed a priori. The quality of selected studies was assessed independently by pairs of authors. Prevalence data, definitions and methods of measurement were extracted independently from each included study by pairs of authors. Finally, some of the country rates were combined and compared.

Results

In total, 12,188 citations were identified and screened by title and abstract; 11,698 were excluded and full-text of 490 assessed for analysis. Of these, 466 were excluded leaving 24 papers included in the review, presenting prevalence of FOC from nine countries in Europe, Australia, Canada and the United States. Various definitions and measurements of FOC were used. The most frequently-used scale was the W-DEQ with various cut-off points describing moderate, severe/intense and extreme/phobic fear. Different 3-, 4-, and 5/6 point scales and visual analogue scales were also used. Country rates (as measured by seven studies using W-DEQ with ≥85 cut-off point) varied from 6.3 to 14.8%, a significant difference (chi-square = 104.44, d.f. = 6, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Rates of severe FOC, measured in the same way, varied in different countries. Reasons why FOC might differ are unknown, and further research is necessary. Future studies on FOC should use the W-DEQ tool with a cut-off point of ≥85, or a more thoroughly tested version of the FOBS scale, or a three-point scale measurement of FOC using a single question as ‘Are you afraid about the birth?’ In this way, valid comparisons in research can be made. Moreover, validation of a clinical tool that is more focussed on FOC alone, and easier than the longer W-DEQ, for women to fill in and clinicians to administer, is required.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-1659-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Examining the description of the concept "treatment as usual" for patients with depression, anxiety and stress-related mental disorders in primary health care research - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within medical research, applied interventions are compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) as the control condition. The aim of the current study was to examine how the concept of TAU is described when used as control condition in RCTs evaluating treatments for depression, anxiety syndromes, and stress-related mental disorders in primary care.

METHOD

A systematic review of RCTs utilizing TAU as control group in the RCT in accordance with PRISMA standards was conducted. We used one multidisciplinary database (Scopus), one database focused on nursing (Cinahl), and one medical database (PubMed). The searches were conducted in November 2021 and May 2022.

RESULTS

The included 32 studies comprised of 7803 participants. The content of TAU was classified as follows: 1) Basic descriptions of TAU lacking a detailed account as well as reference to local or national guidelines, 2) Moderate description of TAU including reference to national or local guidelines or a detailed description 3) Advanced description of TAU including references to national guidelines and a detailed description containing five key concepts: early assessment, accessibility, psychological treatment, medication, somatic examination. 18 studies had basic, 11 moderate, and 3 advanced descriptions of TAU.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations were that only studies published in English were included.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provides an assessment tool with three classification levels for TAU. The description of TAU is still insufficient in RCT studies conducted in primary care, which may affect the interpretation of results. In future research a detailed description of TAU is recommended.