The development and validation of an antenatal EXPECTations of labour and Birth measurement tool: EXPECTBirth Tool.

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Objective: To design and validate an instrument to measure birth expectations (EXPECTBirth). Design: Mixed methods instrument development study Setting: Online maternity services users and in-person at a maternity unit Population: Pregnant women Methods: : 1) systematic review of birth expectations to identify instrument content, 2) think aloud interviews to iteratively develop instrument, 3) online survey for exploratory analysis and item reduction, 4) Rasch analysis to select best functioning items and 5) responsiveness to change test was assessed using data from an antenatal education intervention development study 6) test-retest reliability using responses from 3, 7) external validity compared to existing gold standard. Main outcome measures: EXPECTBirth tool for assessment of expectations of birth which can be positive, negative or neutral. Results: : An initial 45 item questionnaire was developed based on the systematic review and modified in 14 think aloud interviews. 255 women completed the online questionnaire (elements 3,6,7) and 110 participated in the antenatal education intervention (elements 4&5). The applied statistical procedures led to a 12-item tool for measuring birth expectations that presents satisfactory overall responsiveness to change (Cohen’s average effect size 0.35, showing moderate responsiveness), test-retest reliability (Spearman Co-efficient 0.83 p<0.001) and performs well against the existing gold standard Slade-Pais tool, all subscales being at least moderately correlated (rho 0.25 and 0.71). Conclusions: : The EXPECTBirth tool can be used to assess expectations of birth quickly and in a neutral manner. It can be used to investigate whether antenatal interventions alter expectations of birth, or whether expectations vary within and between groups.
Full text 8,676 characters · extracted from preprint-html · click to expand
The development and validation of an antenatal EXPECTations of labour and Birth measurement tool: EXPECTBirth Tool. | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 19 September 2025 V1 Latest version Share on The development and validation of an antenatal EXPECTations of labour and Birth measurement tool: EXPECTBirth Tool. Authors : Miriam Toolan , Mariusz T. Grzeda , Anna Davies 0000-0003-0743-6547 , Emma Harvey , Andrew Demetri 0000-0002-2820-5919 , Mary Lynch , Kate Birchenall , … Show All … , Chloe de Souza , Lucy Willis , Narendra Manpitiya , Katie Barnard , Gemma Clayton , Christy Burden , Abigail Fraser , Sonia Barnfield , Maggie Smith , Michael Larkin , and Abi Merriel 0000-0003-0352-2106 [email protected] Show Fewer Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175827253.35657485/v1 191 views 143 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Objective: To design and validate an instrument to measure birth expectations (EXPECTBirth). Design: Mixed methods instrument development study Setting: Online maternity services users and in-person at a maternity unit Population: Pregnant women Methods: 1) systematic review of birth expectations to identify instrument content, 2) think aloud interviews to iteratively develop instrument, 3) online survey for exploratory analysis and item reduction, 4) Rasch analysis to select best functioning items and 5) responsiveness to change test was assessed using data from an antenatal education intervention development study 6) test-retest reliability using responses from 3, 7) external validity compared to existing gold standard. Main outcome measures: EXPECTBirth tool for assessment of expectations of birth which can be positive, negative or neutral. Results: An initial 45 item questionnaire was developed based on the systematic review and modified in 14 think aloud interviews. 255 women completed the online questionnaire (elements 3,6,7) and 110 participated in the antenatal education intervention (elements 4&5). The applied statistical procedures led to a 12-item tool for measuring birth expectations that presents satisfactory overall responsiveness to change (Cohen’s average effect size 0.35, showing moderate responsiveness), test-retest reliability (Spearman Co-efficient 0.83 p<0.001) and performs well against the existing gold standard Slade-Pais tool, all subscales being at least moderately correlated (rho 0.25 and 0.71). Conclusions: The EXPECTBirth tool can be used to assess expectations of birth quickly and in a neutral manner. It can be used to investigate whether antenatal interventions alter expectations of birth, or whether expectations vary within and between groups. Supplementary Material File (expectbirth tool 170925.doc) Download 243.50 KB File (main tables and figures 061224.docx) Download 376.18 KB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 19 September 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords antenatal care delivery: birth trauma general obstetrics Authors Affiliations Miriam Toolan University of Bristol View all articles by this author Mariusz T. Grzeda University of Bristol View all articles by this author Anna Davies 0000-0003-0743-6547 University of Bristol View all articles by this author Emma Harvey University of Bristol View all articles by this author Andrew Demetri 0000-0002-2820-5919 University of Bristol View all articles by this author Mary Lynch NHS North Bristol NHS Trust View all articles by this author Kate Birchenall University of Bristol View all articles by this author Chloe de Souza NHS North Bristol NHS Trust View all articles by this author Lucy Willis University of Bristol Medical School View all articles by this author Narendra Manpitiya University of Bristol Medical School View all articles by this author Katie Barnard North Bristol NHS Trust Learning and Resource Centre View all articles by this author Gemma Clayton University of Bristol Population Health Sciences View all articles by this author Christy Burden University of Bristol View all articles by this author Abigail Fraser University of Bristol Population Health Sciences View all articles by this author Sonia Barnfield NHS North Bristol NHS Trust View all articles by this author Maggie Smith NHS North Bristol NHS Trust View all articles by this author Michael Larkin Aston University View all articles by this author Abi Merriel 0000-0003-0352-2106 [email protected] University of Liverpool Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 191 views 143 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Miriam Toolan, Mariusz T. Grzeda, Anna Davies, et al. The development and validation of an antenatal EXPECTations of labour and Birth measurement tool: EXPECTBirth Tool.. Authorea . 19 September 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175827253.35657485/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.175827253.35657485/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'a00df087eb7b0db4',t:'MTc3OTY0Mjg5Ng=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: preprint-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-13T06:42:57.164913+00:00