4.5 Article

Women's and men's negative experience of child birth-A cross-sectional survey

期刊

WOMEN AND BIRTH
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 103-109

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2017.07.002

关键词

Childbirth experience; Negative birth experience; Men's birth experience; Women's birth experience

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A negative birth experience may influence both women and men and can limit their process of becoming a parent. Aims: This study aimed to analyze and describe women's and men's perceptions and experiences of childbirth. Design: A cross-sectional study of women and their partners living in one Swedish county were recruited in mid pregnancy and followed up two months after birth. Women (n = 928) and men (n = 818) completed the same questionnaire that investigated new parents' birth experiences in relation to sociodemographic background and birth related variables. Results: Women (6%) and men (3%) with a negative birth experiences, experienced longer labours and more often emergency caesarean section compared to women (94%) and men (97%) with a positive birth experience. The obstetric factors that contributed most strongly to a negative birth experience were emergency caesarean and was found in women (OR 4.7, 95% CI 2.0-10.8) and men (OR 4.5, Cl 95% 1.4-17.3). In addition, pain intensity and elective caesarean section were also associated with a negative birth experiences in women. Feelings during birth such as agreeing with the statement; 'It was a pain to give birth' were a strong contributing factor for both women and men. Conclusions: A negative birth experience is associated with obstetric factors such as emergency caesarean section and negative feelings. The content of negative feelings differed between women and men. It is important to take into account that their feelings differ in order to facilitate the processing of the negative birth experience for both partners. (C) 2017 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据