4.4 Article

'A worse nightmare than expected' - a Swedish qualitative study of women's experiences two months after obstetric anal sphincter muscle injury

Journal

MIDWIFERY
Volume 61, Issue -, Pages 22-28

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.02.015

Keywords

Experiences; Perineal laceration; OASIS; Qualitative approach; Qualitative content analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. County Council of Vasterbotten
  2. Norrbotten

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: this study explores women's experiences of the first two months after obstetric anal sphincter injury ( OASIS) during childbirth with a focus on problematic recovery. Methods: this qualitative study used inductive qualitative content analysis to investigate open-ended responses from 1248 women. The data consists of short and comprehensive written responses to open-ended questions focusing on recovery in the national quality register, the Perineal Laceration Register, two months after OASIS at childbirth. Results: the theme 'A worse nightmare than expected' illustrated women's experiences of their life situation. Pain was a constant reminder of the trauma, and the women had to face physical and psychological limitations as well as crushed expectations of family life. Furthermore, navigating healthcare services for help added further stress to an already stressful situation. Conclusions: we found that women with problematic recovery two months after OASIS experienced their situation as a worse nightmare than expected. Extensive pain resulted in physical and psychological limitations, and crushed expectations of family life. Improved patient information for women with OASIS regarding pain, psychological and personal aspects, sexual function, and subsequent pregnancy delivery is needed. Also, there is a need for clear organizational structures and information to guide help-seeking women to needed care.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available