Unblinded (somewhat unavoidable), informal randomisation, n=26, the sole author is an interior designer with no scientific training. Paper states an "average" difference in birth times of 2.1 hours (not clear if mean or median), no SDs or p-value stated. Published in Optics & Laser Technology for some reason; the editorial board appears to be entirely comprised of engineers.

"A screen was designed to hide emergency equipment with the joint aim of reducing women's anxieties and (through visual art) acting as a focal point of attention and distraction during labour, thus diminishing requirements for analgesia. Results demonstrated, in the presence of the screen, a statistically significant shortening of the duration of labour by 2.1h"

Uh, I don't have access to the full article, but was the control hiding the equipment with a blank screen or no screen at all?

Cause if the control was no screen at all, I don't think they were testing what they say they were testing:

"The significant clinical outcomes of this research provide the evidence of the value of integrating visual art into the environment of a labour and delivery room, improving the quality of the maternity service and potentially delivering real cost savings benefits to Hospitals."