4.0 Article

Factors independently related to a negative birth experience in first-time mothers

期刊

SEXUAL & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE
卷 2, 期 2, 页码 83-89

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.srhc.2010.11.003

关键词

Birth experience; Pain; Vaginal delivery; Caesarean section

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the impact of personality, socio-demographic and obstetric factors on birth experience in a cohort of healthy first-time mothers. A second aim was to compare a visual analogue scale and Wijma Delivery Experience Questionnaire B as instruments evaluating birth experience. Material and methods: In total, 541 women were prospectively followed from the end of pregnancy until 9 months postpartum. Socio-demographic, psychological and somatic data as well as personality characteristics were collected. Experience of delivery was measured with a visual analogue scale and with Wijma Delivery Experience Questionnaire B. Sixty-three variables were considered to be associated with the experience of delivery. Nineteen of these, found to be significantly associated with birth experience, were entered in a logistic regression analysis. Results: The logistic regression analysis showed that a memory of pain during birth, high usage of analgesics postpartum, long hospital stay, worry in late pregnancy and high self-rated irritation were related to a more negative birth experience, while high confidence in the midwife was related to a more positive experience. The correlation between experiences of delivery rated by Wijma Delivery Experience Questionnaire B and the visual analogue scale was 0.52 (p<0.001). Conclusion: To help women to cope with pain during and after birth could be an important factor to improve birth experience. Even though the correlation between the visual analogue scale and Wijma Delivery Experience Questionnaire B was moderate, the visual analogue scale could be used as a simple method for screening of birth experience. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.0
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