4.5 Article

Barriers and facilitators of experiencing pregnancy and motherhood with congenital heart disease: A secondary qualitative analysis

Journal

NURSING OPEN
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 156-164

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1290

Keywords

congenital heart disease; motherhood; pregnancy; qualitative research; secondary analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to explore and describe the challenges faced by mothers with congenital heart disease during pregnancy and motherhood. The perceived barriers include clinical and psychological risks, as well as uncertainty about the future. On the other hand, positive mental attitude, self-motivation, and trust in support from clinicians and nurses act as facilitators.
Aims: To explore arid describe perceived factors that favour or hinder the challenges faced by mothers with congenital heart disease during pregnancy and motherhood. Design: A secondary qualitative analysis, according to the interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. Methods: A previous study by Flocco et al., 2020 led us to identify that this population share risks, fear, worries and challenges related to pregnancy. To better understand two a priori themes, barriers and facilitators, we adopted The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines, and the processes of credibility, transferability and dependability guaranteed the rigour. Results: The perceived barriers that were identified from the twelve semi-structured interviews were mainly identified in clinical and psychological risks, uncertainty about the future. The main facilitators were identified in positive mental attitude, selfmotivation, trust in support by clinicians and nurses. Conclusion: The study results confirmed two main a priori themes, revealing that CHD women perceive considerable obstacles and figure out facilitators to face the difficulties encountered in their path to become mothers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available