[1]¿p#1 Investigation of the mismatch between expectations and experiences of childbirth: a cross-sectional survey

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Objectives: To understand differences between birth expectations and experiences, and to explore possible reasons for mismatches. Design: Online survey Setting: UK Population: Postnatal primiparous (PP) and multiparous (MP) women within 5 years of a birth Methods: : Survey advertised on social media, Participants completed questions relating to birth expectations, experience and preparedness. Data were analysed descriptively and presented overall and by parity. Results: : Of the 819 women, 40% expected birth to be straightforward [PP 29% vs MP 51%], 20% anticipated difficulty [PP 22% vs MP 19%], and 40% [PP 51% vs MP 30%] were unsure. Among the 737/819 whose birth was not exactly as expected, 44% [PP 30% vs MP 47%] found it better than expected, while 56% [PP 66% vs MP 38%] found it more difficult. Unplanned births were higher in those with difficult experiences, particularly for primiparous women [PP 58% vs MP 23%]. Women cited quicker births, fewer complications, and better coping as reasons for positive experiences, while complications, pain, and slower labour contributed to difficulties. Overall, 77% (633/819) [PP 64% vs MP 80%] of women felt very or somewhat prepared for birth. Among them, 76% (484/633) [PP 88% vs MP 69%] had attended antenatal education. However similarly, 75% (130/174) [PP 80% vs MP 66%] of those who felt less prepared had also attended antenatal education. Conclusions: : Most women have an element of expectation-experience mismatch. Over half in the found birth more difficult than expected, this suggests current approaches to birth preparation may be inadequate. Further research into reducing the expectations-experience gap is needed.
Full text 8,667 characters · extracted from preprint-html · click to expand
[1]¿p#1 Investigation of the mismatch between expectations and experiences of childbirth: a cross-sectional survey | 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. 4 March 2026 V1 Latest version Share on [1]¿p#1 Investigation of the mismatch between expectations and experiences of childbirth: a cross-sectional survey Authors : Katherine Lattey , Anna Davies 0000-0003-0743-6547 , Eva Larkai , Emma Harvey , Lucy Willis , Narendra Manpitiya , Miriam Toolan , … Show All … , Mary Lynch , Kate Rawling , Sonia Barnfield , Maggie Smith , Rachel Plachcinski , Christy Burden , Vicky Bradley 0009-0002-2551-4713 , Abigail Fraser , Michael Larkin , Gemma Clayton , and Abi Merriel 0000-0003-0352-2106 [email protected] Show Fewer Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.177258798.89640601/v1 137 views 62 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Objectives: To understand differences between birth expectations and experiences, and to explore possible reasons for mismatches. Design: Online survey Setting: UK Population: Postnatal primiparous (PP) and multiparous (MP) women within 5 years of a birth Methods: Survey advertised on social media, Participants completed questions relating to birth expectations, experience and preparedness. Data were analysed descriptively and presented overall and by parity. Results: Of the 819 women, 40% expected birth to be straightforward [PP 29% vs MP 51%], 20% anticipated difficulty [PP 22% vs MP 19%], and 40% [PP 51% vs MP 30%] were unsure. Among the 737/819 whose birth was not exactly as expected, 44% [PP 30% vs MP 47%] found it better than expected, while 56% [PP 66% vs MP 38%] found it more difficult. Unplanned births were higher in those with difficult experiences, particularly for primiparous women [PP 58% vs MP 23%]. Women cited quicker births, fewer complications, and better coping as reasons for positive experiences, while complications, pain, and slower labour contributed to difficulties. Overall, 77% (633/819) [PP 64% vs MP 80%] of women felt very or somewhat prepared for birth. Among them, 76% (484/633) [PP 88% vs MP 69%] had attended antenatal education. However similarly, 75% (130/174) [PP 80% vs MP 66%] of those who felt less prepared had also attended antenatal education. Conclusions: Most women have an element of expectation-experience mismatch. Over half in the found birth more difficult than expected, this suggests current approaches to birth preparation may be inadequate. Further research into reducing the expectations-experience gap is needed. Supplementary Material File (ace_main_text 020326.docx) Download 104.06 KB File (table 1 020326.docx) Download 19.38 KB File (table 2 020326.docx) Download 20.60 KB File (table 3 020326.docx) Download 21.91 KB File (table 4 020326.docx) Download 23.57 KB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 04 March 2026 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords general obstetrics maternity services Authors Affiliations Katherine Lattey NHS North Bristol NHS Trust View all articles by this author Anna Davies 0000-0003-0743-6547 University of Bristol Bristol Renal View all articles by this author Eva Larkai University of Bristol Bristol Renal View all articles by this author Emma Harvey University of Bristol View all articles by this author Lucy Willis University of Bristol View all articles by this author Narendra Manpitiya University of Bristol View all articles by this author Miriam Toolan University of Bristol Bristol Renal View all articles by this author Mary Lynch NHS North Bristol NHS Trust View all articles by this author Kate Rawling 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 Rachel Plachcinski National Childbirth Trust View all articles by this author Christy Burden University of Bristol View all articles by this author Vicky Bradley 0009-0002-2551-4713 University of Liverpool Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences View all articles by this author Abigail Fraser University of Bristol Population Health Sciences View all articles by this author Michael Larkin Aston University College of Health and Life Sciences View all articles by this author Gemma Clayton University of Bristol Population Health Sciences 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 137 views 62 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Katherine Lattey, Anna Davies, Eva Larkai, et al. [1]¿p#1 Investigation of the mismatch between expectations and experiences of childbirth: a cross-sectional survey. Authorea . 04 March 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.177258798.89640601/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.177258798.89640601/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:'9fe10ada3ebe41e2',t:'MTc3OTE3MjExNQ=='};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 (2026) — 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: 2026-05-20T11:00:21.680559+00:00