Cross-over trial comparing maternal acceptance of two fetal movement charts
Objective: To compare two daily fetal movement charting techniques to determine which chart was preferred by patients and which promoted more patient adherence. Methods: This randomized trial included patients with singleton gestations between 28 and 34 weeks' gestation, with intact membranes a...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine 2003-08, Vol.14 (2), p.118-122 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 122 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 118 |
| container_title | The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Christensen, F. C. Olson, K. Rayburn, W. F. |
| description | Objective: To compare two daily fetal movement charting techniques to determine which chart was preferred by patients and which promoted more patient adherence.
Methods: This randomized
trial included patients with singleton gestations between 28 and 34 weeks' gestation, with intact membranes and not in labor. Consenting women were given a Hollister® chart and a 'count to 10' chart
in a cross-over manner over two consecutive 1-week periods. Each patient answered a questionnaire establishing which chart was preferred. All returned charts were evaluated for patient adherence. Data were
analyzed using either the Yates-corrected χ2 test or Fisher's exact test when appropriate.
Results: Forty patients agreed to participate, and 31 completed and returned both charts. The 'count
to 10' chart was clearly preferred over the Hollister chart (29 vs. 2; p = 0.002) because of the shorter recording period (median 23 min vs. 1 h; p < 0.01). The proportion of patients who
fully completed the 'count to 10' chart during the week was significantly higher than the proportion completing the Hollister chart (68% vs. 26%; p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The 'count
to 10' fetal movement chart was clearly preferred and promoted a higher level of adherence. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/jmf.14.2.118.122 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_14629093</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>422928061</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-4ac279fc0fd77987599cd7ce81c34292bc4ef67073e00dd05d545de0bee5c593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtrGzEURkVpaR7tPqswZNHdTK9e1qhZFZNHaaCb7IWsuarHjEauJDfk31fGhtBCupK4Ot_H1SHkgkJHoYfPm-A7KjrWUdp3lLE35JQKtWiFluLt8a5A9ifkLOcNAKMC5HtyQsWCadD8lHxfpphzG39jakoa7dS4GLY2jfPPJtiCaa4j6xxui50dNtE35Sk2HkudhxoLOJfGrW0q-QN55-2U8ePxPCePtzePy_v24cfdt-XXh9ZxAaUV1jGlvQM_KKV7JbV2g3LY0_rONFs5gX6hQHEEGAaQgxRyQFghSic1PyefDrXbFH_tMBcTxuxwmuyMcZeNorznWuzBq3_ATdztP5QNA8oZpwtWIThAbi8ioTfbNAabng0Fs5dsqmRDhWGmSjZVco1cHnt3q4DDS-BotQLXB2CcfUzBPsU0DabY5ykmn6rHMRv-n_ovf6XXaKeydjbhy_6vhv8AKx-f3Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>201323162</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cross-over trial comparing maternal acceptance of two fetal movement charts</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Taylor & Francis Journals Complete</source><creator>Christensen, F. C. ; Olson, K. ; Rayburn, W. F.</creator><creatorcontrib>Christensen, F. C. ; Olson, K. ; Rayburn, W. F.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To compare two daily fetal movement charting techniques to determine which chart was preferred by patients and which promoted more patient adherence.
Methods: This randomized
trial included patients with singleton gestations between 28 and 34 weeks' gestation, with intact membranes and not in labor. Consenting women were given a Hollister® chart and a 'count to 10' chart
in a cross-over manner over two consecutive 1-week periods. Each patient answered a questionnaire establishing which chart was preferred. All returned charts were evaluated for patient adherence. Data were
analyzed using either the Yates-corrected χ2 test or Fisher's exact test when appropriate.
Results: Forty patients agreed to participate, and 31 completed and returned both charts. The 'count
to 10' chart was clearly preferred over the Hollister chart (29 vs. 2; p = 0.002) because of the shorter recording period (median 23 min vs. 1 h; p < 0.01). The proportion of patients who
fully completed the 'count to 10' chart during the week was significantly higher than the proportion completing the Hollister chart (68% vs. 26%; p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The 'count
to 10' fetal movement chart was clearly preferred and promoted a higher level of adherence.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1476-7058</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-4954</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/jmf.14.2.118.122</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14629093</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JMNMAE</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Informa UK Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Antenatal Testing ; Cross-Over Studies ; Documentation - methods ; Female ; Fetal Monitoring - methods ; Fetal Movement ; Fetal Movement Chart ; Fetal Surveillance ; Humans ; Medical Records ; New Mexico ; Patient Compliance ; Patient Satisfaction ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Trimester, Third ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine, 2003-08, Vol.14 (2), p.118-122</ispartof><rights>2003 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted 2003</rights><rights>Copyright CRC Press Aug 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-4ac279fc0fd77987599cd7ce81c34292bc4ef67073e00dd05d545de0bee5c593</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-4ac279fc0fd77987599cd7ce81c34292bc4ef67073e00dd05d545de0bee5c593</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/jmf.14.2.118.122$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/jmf.14.2.118.122$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,59647,60436,61221,61402</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14629093$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Christensen, F. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olson, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rayburn, W. F.</creatorcontrib><title>Cross-over trial comparing maternal acceptance of two fetal movement charts</title><title>The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine</title><addtitle>J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med</addtitle><description>Objective: To compare two daily fetal movement charting techniques to determine which chart was preferred by patients and which promoted more patient adherence.
Methods: This randomized
trial included patients with singleton gestations between 28 and 34 weeks' gestation, with intact membranes and not in labor. Consenting women were given a Hollister® chart and a 'count to 10' chart
in a cross-over manner over two consecutive 1-week periods. Each patient answered a questionnaire establishing which chart was preferred. All returned charts were evaluated for patient adherence. Data were
analyzed using either the Yates-corrected χ2 test or Fisher's exact test when appropriate.
Results: Forty patients agreed to participate, and 31 completed and returned both charts. The 'count
to 10' chart was clearly preferred over the Hollister chart (29 vs. 2; p = 0.002) because of the shorter recording period (median 23 min vs. 1 h; p < 0.01). The proportion of patients who
fully completed the 'count to 10' chart during the week was significantly higher than the proportion completing the Hollister chart (68% vs. 26%; p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The 'count
to 10' fetal movement chart was clearly preferred and promoted a higher level of adherence.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Antenatal Testing</subject><subject>Cross-Over Studies</subject><subject>Documentation - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fetal Monitoring - methods</subject><subject>Fetal Movement</subject><subject>Fetal Movement Chart</subject><subject>Fetal Surveillance</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical Records</subject><subject>New Mexico</subject><subject>Patient Compliance</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Trimester, Third</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>1476-7058</issn><issn>1476-4954</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtrGzEURkVpaR7tPqswZNHdTK9e1qhZFZNHaaCb7IWsuarHjEauJDfk31fGhtBCupK4Ot_H1SHkgkJHoYfPm-A7KjrWUdp3lLE35JQKtWiFluLt8a5A9ifkLOcNAKMC5HtyQsWCadD8lHxfpphzG39jakoa7dS4GLY2jfPPJtiCaa4j6xxui50dNtE35Sk2HkudhxoLOJfGrW0q-QN55-2U8ePxPCePtzePy_v24cfdt-XXh9ZxAaUV1jGlvQM_KKV7JbV2g3LY0_rONFs5gX6hQHEEGAaQgxRyQFghSic1PyefDrXbFH_tMBcTxuxwmuyMcZeNorznWuzBq3_ATdztP5QNA8oZpwtWIThAbi8ioTfbNAabng0Fs5dsqmRDhWGmSjZVco1cHnt3q4DDS-BotQLXB2CcfUzBPsU0DabY5ykmn6rHMRv-n_ovf6XXaKeydjbhy_6vhv8AKx-f3Q</recordid><startdate>20030801</startdate><enddate>20030801</enddate><creator>Christensen, F. C.</creator><creator>Olson, K.</creator><creator>Rayburn, W. F.</creator><general>Informa UK Ltd</general><general>Taylor & Francis</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030801</creationdate><title>Cross-over trial comparing maternal acceptance of two fetal movement charts</title><author>Christensen, F. C. ; Olson, K. ; Rayburn, W. F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-4ac279fc0fd77987599cd7ce81c34292bc4ef67073e00dd05d545de0bee5c593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Antenatal Testing</topic><topic>Cross-Over Studies</topic><topic>Documentation - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fetal Monitoring - methods</topic><topic>Fetal Movement</topic><topic>Fetal Movement Chart</topic><topic>Fetal Surveillance</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical Records</topic><topic>New Mexico</topic><topic>Patient Compliance</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Trimester, Third</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Christensen, F. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olson, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rayburn, W. F.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Christensen, F. C.</au><au>Olson, K.</au><au>Rayburn, W. F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cross-over trial comparing maternal acceptance of two fetal movement charts</atitle><jtitle>The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med</addtitle><date>2003-08-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>118</spage><epage>122</epage><pages>118-122</pages><issn>1476-7058</issn><eissn>1476-4954</eissn><coden>JMNMAE</coden><abstract>Objective: To compare two daily fetal movement charting techniques to determine which chart was preferred by patients and which promoted more patient adherence.
Methods: This randomized
trial included patients with singleton gestations between 28 and 34 weeks' gestation, with intact membranes and not in labor. Consenting women were given a Hollister® chart and a 'count to 10' chart
in a cross-over manner over two consecutive 1-week periods. Each patient answered a questionnaire establishing which chart was preferred. All returned charts were evaluated for patient adherence. Data were
analyzed using either the Yates-corrected χ2 test or Fisher's exact test when appropriate.
Results: Forty patients agreed to participate, and 31 completed and returned both charts. The 'count
to 10' chart was clearly preferred over the Hollister chart (29 vs. 2; p = 0.002) because of the shorter recording period (median 23 min vs. 1 h; p < 0.01). The proportion of patients who
fully completed the 'count to 10' chart during the week was significantly higher than the proportion completing the Hollister chart (68% vs. 26%; p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The 'count
to 10' fetal movement chart was clearly preferred and promoted a higher level of adherence.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Informa UK Ltd</pub><pmid>14629093</pmid><doi>10.1080/jmf.14.2.118.122</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1476-7058 |
| ispartof | The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine, 2003-08, Vol.14 (2), p.118-122 |
| issn | 1476-7058 1476-4954 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmed_primary_14629093 |
| source | MEDLINE; Taylor & Francis Journals Complete |
| subjects | Adult Antenatal Testing Cross-Over Studies Documentation - methods Female Fetal Monitoring - methods Fetal Movement Fetal Movement Chart Fetal Surveillance Humans Medical Records New Mexico Patient Compliance Patient Satisfaction Pregnancy Pregnancy Trimester, Third Surveys and Questionnaires |
| title | Cross-over trial comparing maternal acceptance of two fetal movement charts |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T15%3A00%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cross-over%20trial%20comparing%20maternal%20acceptance%20of%20two%20fetal%20movement%20charts&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20maternal-fetal%20&%20neonatal%20medicine&rft.au=Christensen,%20F.%20C.&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=118&rft.epage=122&rft.pages=118-122&rft.issn=1476-7058&rft.eissn=1476-4954&rft.coden=JMNMAE&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/jmf.14.2.118.122&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E422928061%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=201323162&rft_id=info:pmid/14629093&rfr_iscdi=true |