The birth beliefs scale – a new measure to assess basic beliefs about birth

References

• Lally JE, Murtagh MJ, Macphail S, Thomson R. More in hope than expectation: a systematic review of women's expectations and experience of pain relief in labour. BMC Med 2008;6:7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bar-On S, Benyamini Y, Ebrahimoff M, Many A. Mother knows best? Comparing primiparous parturients’ expectations and predictions with actual birth outcomes. J Perinat Med 2014;42:435–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindholm A, Hildingsson I. Women’s preferences and received pain relief in childbirth – a prospective longitudinal study in a northern region of Sweden. Sex Reprod Healthc 2015;6:74–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garthus-Niegel S, von Soest T, Knoph C, et al. The influence of women’s preferences and actual mode of delivery on post-traumatic stress symptoms following childbirth: a population-based, longitudinal study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burcher P. The Ulysses contract in obstetrics: a woman's choices before and during labour. J Med Ethics 2013;39:27–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlton T, Callister L, Stoneman E. Decision making in laboring women: ethical issues for perinatal nurses. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2005;19:145–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kannan S, Jamison RN, Datta S. Maternal satisfaction and pain control in women electing natural childbirth. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001;26:468–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frost J, Pope C, Liebling R, Murphy D. Utopian theory and the discourse of natural birth. Soc Theory Health 2006;4:299–318.
   Google Scholar
• Soderquist J, Wijma K, Wijma B. Traumatic stress after childbirth: the role of obstetric variables. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2002;23:31–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deneux-Tharaux C, Carmona E, Bouvier-Colle MH, Breart G. Postpartum maternal mortality and cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:541–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLuca RS, Lobel M. Diminished control and unmet expectations: testing a model of adjustment to unplanned cesarean delivery. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy 2014;14:183–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher M, Shrem D, Solt I. The social and medicolegal aspects of maternal request or non-medically indicated cesarean section. Harefuah 2013;152:398–400. [Hebrew].
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, et al. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Rep 2010;30:1–31.
   Google Scholar
• Sakala C, Corry MP, Evidence-based maternity care: what it is and what it can achieve. NY: Milbank Memorial Fund; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Zupancic JA. The economics of elective cesarean section. Clin Perinatol 2008;35:591–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryding EL, Lukasse M, Kristjansdottir H, et al. Pregnant women’s preference for cesarean section and subsequent mode of birth – a six-country cohort study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2016;37:75–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilden EL, Caughey AB, Lee CS, Emeis C. The effect of childbirth self-efficacy on perinatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2016;45:465–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glantz JC. Obstetric variation, intervention, and outcomes: doing more but accomplishing less. Birth 2012;39:286–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johanson R, Newburn M, Macfarlane A. Has the medicalisation of childbirth gone too far? BMJ 2002;324:892–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albers LL. The evidence for physiologic management of the active phase of the first stage of labor. J Midwifery Womens Health 2007;52:207–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgado Nunes V, Gholitabar M, Sims JM, Bewley S. Guideline Development Group. Intrapartum care of healthy women and their babies: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ 2014;349:g6886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis-Floyd RE. Birth as an American rite of passage. CA: University of California Press; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Malacrida C, Boulton T. The best laid plans? Women’s choices, expectations and experiences in childbirth. Health (London) 2014;18:41–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young K, Miller YD. Keeping it natural: does persuasive magazine content have an effect on young women’s intentions for birth? Women Health 2015;55:447–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson KL, Sirois FM. Birth attendant choice and satisfaction with antenatal care: the role of birth philosophy, relational style, and health self-efficacy. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2010;28:69–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson E. Women, birth practitioners, and models of pregnancy and birth-does consensus exist? Health Care Women Int 2014;35:149–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howell-White S. Choosing a birth attendant: the influence of a woman’s childbirth definition. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:925–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines HM, Rubertsson C, Pallant JF, Hildingsson I. Womens’ attitudes and beliefs of childbirth and association with birth preference: a comparison of a Swedish and an Australian sample in mid-pregnancy. Midwifery 2012;28:e850–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoll K, Hall WA. Attitudes and preferences of young women with low and high fear of childbirth. Qual Health Res 2013;23:1495–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiaens W, Verhaeghe M, Bracke P. Pain acceptance and personal control in pain relief in two maternity care models: a cross-national comparison of Belgium and the Netherlands. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kringeland T, Möller A. Risk and security in childbirth. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2006;27:185–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arcia A. US nulliparas' perceptions of roles and of the birth experience as predictors of their delivery preferences. Midwifery 2013;29:885–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadjigeorgiou E, Kouta C, Papastavrou E, et al. Women’s perceptions of their right to choose the place of childbirth: an integrative review. Midwifery 2012;28:380–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornelsen J. Essences and imperatives: an investigation of technology in childbirth. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:1495–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Cruz L, Lee C. Childbirth expectations: an Australian study of young childless women. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2014;32:199–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoll KH, Hauck YL, Hall WA. Home or hospital? Midwife or physician? Preferences for maternity care provider and place of birth among Western Australian students. Women Birth 2015;29:e33–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callister LC. Beliefs and perceptions of childbearing women choosing different primary health care providers. Clin Nurs Res 1995;4:168–80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Green JM, Baston HA. Have women become more willing to accept obstetric interventions and does this relate to mode of birth? Data from a prospective study. Birth 2007;34:6–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines HM, Rubertsson C, Pallant JF, Hildingsson I. The influence of women’s fear, attitudes and beliefs of childbirth on mode and experience of birth. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012;12:1–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster JC. Utah test for the childbearing year: beliefs and perceptions about childbearing [dissertation]. University of Utah; 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Burger JM, Desire for control: personality, social, and clinical perspectives. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Hefer LM, The influencing factors of women’s choice regarding childbirth [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Tel Aviv University; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Browne MW, Cudeck R, Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, eds. Testing structural equation models. CA: Sage; 1993:136–62.
   Google Scholar
• Hoyle RH, Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. CA: Sage Publications;1995.
   Google Scholar
• Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999;6:1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Arbuckle JL. Amos (version 7.0)[Computer software]. Chicago: SPSS; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Van Der Hulst LAM, Van Teijlingen ER, Bonsel GJ, et al. Does a pregnant woman’s intended place of birth influence her attitudes toward and occurrence of obstetric interventions? Birth 2004;31:28–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Teijlingen E. A critical analysis of the medical model as used in the study of pregnancy and childbirth. Sociol Res Online 2005;10. doi: 10.5153/sro.1034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young D. What is normal childbirth and do we need more statements about it? Birth 2009;36:1–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeldes K, Norsigian J. Encouraging women to consider a less medicalized approach to childbirth without turning them off: challenges to producing our bodies, ourselves: pregnancy and birth. Birth 2008;35:245–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vaus D. Analyzing social science data: 50 key problems in data analysis. CA: Sage; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Fenwick J, Hauck Y, Downie J, Butt J. The childbirth expectations of a self-selected cohort of Western Australian women. Midwifery 2005;21:23–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming SE, Vandermause R, Shaw M. First-time mothers preparing for birthing in an electronic world: internet and mobile phone technology. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2014;32:240–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris T, McInerney K. Media representations of pregnancy and childbirth: an analysis of reality television programs in the United States. Birth 2010;37:134–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer A, Ayers S, Abbott J, et al. Measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth: a comparative review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013;13:108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar