4.2 Article

Do self-efficacy beliefs predict the primiparous labour and birth experience? A longitudinal study

Journal

JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE AND INFANT PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 357-373

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02646830903190888

Keywords

childbirth; labour; longitudinal; pregnancy; cognitive

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this longitudinal study was to determine the predictive role of birth self-efficacy beliefs in primiparous women's childbirth experiences (n=230). The study had three aims: (1) to determine whether birth self-efficacy beliefs predict pain tolerance and pain perceptions in labour, (2) whether self-efficacy beliefs predict obstetric events and birth satisfaction, and (3) whether the relationships between self-efficacy and pain, and self-efficacy and obstetric events and self-efficacy and satisfaction persist when key cognitive, behavioural, social, and demographic covariates are accounted for. A New Zealand-based longitudinal observational study set was designed. Participants (self-selected primiparous women) completed the Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory (CBSEI) and cognitive and behavioural constructs at 15 and 35 weeks gestation. Postpartum measures included pain tolerance, labour pain and distress, number and type of obstetric events and birth satisfaction. Hierarchical multiple regressions indicated that stronger birth self-efficacy beliefs predicted decreased pain and distress in labour, but not pain tolerance. Also, stronger self-efficacy predicted increased birth satisfaction. The relationships remained significant when covariates were controlled for. The practice implications are that supporting and developing primiparous women's strong birth self-efficacy beliefs will have an impact on their pain experiences and feelings of satisfaction but is unlikely to influence obstetric events.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available