title: A cross-sectional study of maternal perception of fetal movements and antenatal advice in a general pregnant population, using a qualitative framework.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Maternal perception of fetal movements has been used as a measure of fetal well-being. Yet a Cochrane review does not recommend formal fetal movement counting compared to discretional fetal movement counting. There is some evidence that suggests that the quality of fetal movements can precede quantitative changes however there has been almost no assessment of how women describe movements and whether these descriptions may be useful in a clinical setting. Therefore we aimed to examine maternal perception of fetal movements using a qualitative framework.
  
  
  METHODS
  Using a cross-sectional design we identified women during routine antenatal care at a tertiary referral hospital, in Sydney, Australia. Eligible women were pregnant ≥ 28 weeks, carrying a single child, > 18 years old, and with sufficient English literacy to self-complete a questionnaire. Post-natally the medical records were reviewed and demographic, pregnancy and fetal outcome data were extracted. Text responses to questions regarding maternal descriptions of fetal movements throughout pregnancy, were analysed using thematic analysis in an explicit process.
  
  
  RESULTS
  156 women participated. There was a general pattern to fetal movement descriptions with increasing gestation, beginning with words such as "gentle", to descriptions of "strong" and "limb" movements, and finally to "whole body" movements. Women perceived and described qualitative changes to fetal movements that changed throughout gestation. The majority (83%) reported that they were asked to assess fetal movements in an implicit qualitative method during their antenatal care. In contrast, only 16% regularly counted fetal movements and many described counting as confusing and reported that the advice they had received on counting differed.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This is the first study to use qualitative analysis to identify that pregnant women perceive fetal movements and can describe them in a relatively homogenous way throughout pregnancy that follow a general pattern of fetal growth and development. These findings suggest that women's perception of fetal wellbeing based on their own assessment of fetal movement is used in an ad hoc method in antenatal care by clinicians.
authors: Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. camille.raynes-greenow@sydney.edu.au
authors: Camille H
authors: CH
authors: Raynes-Greenow
authors: Adrienne
authors: A
authors: Gordon
authors: Qiushuang
authors: Q
authors: Li
authors: Jon A
authors: JA
authors: Hyett
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001315:Australia; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D005324:Fetal Movement; D006801:Humans; D011247:Pregnancy; D011256:Pregnancy Outcome; D011263:Pregnancy Trimester, Third; D011295:Prenatal Care / Q000379:methods*; D036301:Qualitative Research; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D062606:Tertiary Care Centers
references: Lancet. 1989 Aug 12;2(8659):345-9
references: 2569550
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD004909
references: 17253530
references: Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006 Jul;48(7):547
references: 16780620
references: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(12):1345-51
references: 19878088
references: Lancet. 2011 Apr 16;377(9774):1331-40
references: 21496916
references: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004 Sep;83(9):818-26
references: 15315592
references: Am J Perinatol. 2007 Feb;24(2):89-93
references: 17268946
references: Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
references: 17872937
references: J Perinat Med. 2004;32(1):13-24
references: 15008381
references: J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Feb;28(2):147-54
references: 18393008
references: Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005 Nov;33(11):861-9
references: 16243568
references: Sex Reprod Healthc. 2012 Oct;3(3):113-6
references: 22980736
references: Early Hum Dev. 1982 Dec;7(4):301-22
references: 7169027
references: Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Mar;38(1):59-67
references: 7796553
references: J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30(6):578-82
references: 20701506
references: Birth. 2011 Dec;38(4):311-6
references: 22112331
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Mar;184(4):694-702
references: 11262474
references: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1979 Sep;86(9):717-23
references: 497144
references: Pediatr Res. 2008 Feb;63(2):191-5
references: 18091359
references: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001 Sep;74(3):293-5
references: 11543756
references: J Perinat Med. 1998;26(2):77-82
references: 9650126
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991 May 10;39(3):165-7
references: 2032586
references: MedGenMed. 2004 May 27;6(2):53
references: 15266278