Objective: It is common for women to explore and plan strategies to cope during labour. These strategies are usually focused on pain control and described as either pharmacological or non-pharmacological. As labour is an individual experience, each woman should be enabled to choose strategies that best suit them, and that reflect what they feel influences their sense of capacity to cope. By exploring women’s intentions and choices of strategies, this study aimed to understand how coping strategies can better reflect women’s individual needs and expectations. Design: Survey of 56 pregnant women, including open-ended questions. Setting: Australian tertiary maternity hospital. Population: Nulliparous women. Methods: Content and thematic analysis of open-ended responses. Main outcome measures: A qualitative description of women’s planned coping strategies for labour. Results: Themes related to how women frame the intensity of labour, how they strive for a relationally safe environment and a need to be prepared and knowledgeable. Strategies chosen by women could be grouped into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic strategies could be self-generated by women (such as breathing techniques and movement), while extrinsic strategies required either equipment (such as a bath) or others to administer (such as epidural analgesia). Conclusions: Women value having a range of intrinsic and extrinsic strategies that enable autonomy or require external support. This moves beyond the ‘pharmacological and non-pharmacological’ categorisation of strategies. The findings provide a foundation for more targeted research into how women can be supported to individualise and implement these coping strategies in labour.

Objective The My Baby’s Movements (MBM) trial aimed to evaluate the impact on stillbirth rates of a multifaceted awareness package (MBM intervention). Design Stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. Setting Twenty-seven maternity hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Population Women with a singleton pregnancy without major fetal anomaly ≥28 weeks’ gestation from August 2016-May 2019. Methods The MBM intervention was implemented at randomly assigned time points with sequential introduction into 8 clusters of 3-5 hospitals at four-monthly intervals. The stillbirth rate was compared in the control and intervention periods. Generalised linear mixed models controlled for calendar time, clustering, and hospital effects. Outcome Measures Stillbirth at ≥28 weeks’ gestation. Results There were 304,853 births with 290,219 meeting inclusion criteria: 150,079 in control and 140,140 in intervention periods. The stillbirth rate during the intervention was lower than the control period (2.2/1000 births versus 2.4, odds ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI] 0.78-1.06, p=0.22). The decrease was larger across calendar time with 2.7/1000 in the first 18 months versus 2.0/1000 in the last 18 months (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.86; p≤0.01). Following adjustment, stillbirth rates between the control and intervention periods were not significantly different: (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 0.93-1.50; p=0.18). No increase in secondary outcomes, including obstetric intervention or adverse neonatal outcome, was evident. Conclusion The MBM intervention did not reduce stillbirths beyond the downward trend over time, suggesting hospitals may have implemented best practice in DFM management outside their randomisation schedule. The role of interventions for raising awareness of DFM remains unclear