Randomised controlled trial demonstrates increased maternal-fetal attachment in low-risk primigravida, indicating fetal movement count is beneficial.
Background: Maternal-fetal attachment is the bond that grows over time during the pregnancy via several antenatal practices for a healthy fetus. One such practice is daily fetal movement count which may play a vital part in promoting maternal fetal attachment. This study aims to determine the effect of daily fetal movement count on maternal-fetal attachment levels among low-risk primigravida women and find the association between obstetrical variables and post-maternal antenatal attachment scores. Materials and Methods: A randomization trial was conducted among low-risk primigravids (40 in experimental and 40 in control groups) in the antenatal outpatient department. The low-risk primigravids who were in 28–32 weeks of gestation were asked to count and mark the number of fetal movements perceived by them in a daily fetal movement count chart for consecutive two weeks in the intervention group whereas only routine antenatal care was been provided to the control group. Result: The study findings show that in intervention group primigravids, about 20 (50%) had very positive feelings about the baby inside them, 30 (75%) consider their developing baby as a little person with special characteristics, 24 (60%) the baby is dependent on them for their well-being, 16 (40%) of the primigravids in the intervention group after performing daily fetal movement count scored high during post assessment revealing that they have a very clear picture of their baby. The differences in pre-assessment and post-assessment scores were found highly statistically significant (P=<0.001). Conclusion: The study concluded that primigravida who were performing fetal movement count had increased maternal-antenatal attachment levels than primigravida who did not perform fetal movement count.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhandari et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: