Examining the birth experiences of women with and without prenatal education: A qualitative study

Meryem Metinoğlu 1 * , Aylin Yalçın Irmak 1, Ülfiye Çelikkalp 2
More Detail
1 Nursing Department, School of Health, Namik Kemal University, Tekirdag, Turkey
2 Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
* Corresponding Author
J CLIN MED KAZ, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp. 57-63. https://doi.org/10.23950/jcmk/9657
OPEN ACCESS
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Aim: This qualitative study examines the intrapartum experiences of nulliparous Turkish women who participated childbirth education classes and only engaged in routine prenatal care.
Material and methods: The study was conducted in a Family Health Center in primary health care service in a metropolitan city in Turkey between October 2015 and June 2016. Women engaged in routine prenatal care (RPC group) (n=17) and women participating in childbirth education classes (CEC group) (n=14) at the maternity unit were included in the study via a purposive sampling method. Data were collected in semi-structured one-on-one interviews with participants. Data were collected by The Socio-Demographic and Obstetric Information Form and The Semi-Structured Interview Form. Number, percentage, mean and standard deviation were used to evaluate descriptive data.
Results: The average age of the 31 women participating was 29.33±3.75. Within the sample population, majority had an education level of university (67.74%) and a nuclear family structure (90.32%). There was no significant difference (p>.05) between the socio-demographic characteristics of both groups. Of the women participating in CEC, 92.8% in the lithotomy position; none of them received anesthesia. Within this group, 50% received no intervention during labor, while 42.86% received fundal pressure, and episiotomy was applied to 21.43% of participants. All women engaged only in RPC had their birth in the lithotomy position, and 11.76% of them received epidural anesthesia. Interventions applied included episiotomy (76.47%), induced labor (70.59%), fundal pressure (58.82%), continuous Non Stress Test (NST) (58.82%), continuous intravenous infusion (52.94%), and enema (47.05%). The statements analyzed were classified under four themes: (1) satisfaction, (2) compliance with birthing positions, (3) intrinsic concentration and (4) participant control of decision-making.
Conclusion: The childbirth education classes group reported that was implemented the less intrapartum intervention, greater satisfaction, fewer distractions, greater participation in active decision-making, and a greater tendency to use non-pharmacological methods. In contrast, the routine prenatal care group mostly reported passive participation, difficulty in pain and contraction control, and greater dissatisfaction.

CITATION

Metinoğlu M, Yalçın Irmak A, Çelikkalp Ü. Examining the birth experiences of women with and without prenatal education: A qualitative study. J CLIN MED KAZ. 2021;18(1):57-63. https://doi.org/10.23950/jcmk/9657

REFERENCES

  • Dinç H, Yazıcı S, Yılmaz T, Günaydın S. Pregnancy education. Journal of Health Sciences and Professions. 2015; 1(1):68-76. doi:10.17681/hsp.99216.
  • Esencan TY, Karabulut Ö, Yıldırım AD, Abbasoğlu DE, Külek H, Şimşek Ç, Kılıçcı Ç. Delivery type, first breastfeeding time and skin-to-skin contact preferences of pregnant women who have been trained for childbirth. Florence Nightingale Nursing Journal. 2018; 26(1):31-43. doi:10.26650/FNJN.387192.
  • Serçekuş P, Yenal K. Development of childbirth education classes in Turkey. Turkey Clinics Journal of Obstetric- Women’s Health and Diseases Nursing-Special Topics; 2015; 1(1):33-35. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2015.11.016.
  • Turkey Demographic and Health Survey TDHS-2013. Retrieved from http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/tnsa2013/rapor/TNSA_2013_ana_rapor.pdf, on April 20, 2018.
  • Turkey Demographic and Health Survey TDHS-2018. Retrieved from http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/tnsa2018/rapor/TNSA2018_ana_Rapor.pdf, on September 5, 2020.
  • Bergström M, Kieler H, Waldenström U. Psychoprophylaxis during labor: associations with labor-related outcomes and experience of childbirth. Acta Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 89:794–800. doi:10.3109/00016341003694978.
  • Cantone D, Lombardi A, Assunto DA, Piccolo M, Rizzo N, Pelullo CP, Attena F. A standardized antenatal class reduces the rate of cesarean section in southern Italy: A retrospective cohort study. Medicine. 2018; 97(16). doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000010456
  • Miquelutti MA, Cecatti JG, Makuch MY. Evaluation of a birth preparation program on lumbopelvic pain, urinary incontinence, anxiety and exercise: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13(1):154. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-13-154.
  • Hong K, Hwang H, Han H, Chae J, Choi J, Jeong Y, Lee KJ. Perspectives on antenatal education associated with pregnancy outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Women and Birth. 2020. doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2020.04.002.
  • Serçekuş P, Başkale H. Effects of antenatal education on fear of childbirth, maternal self efficacy and parental attachment. Midwifery. 2016; 34:166-172. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2015.11.016.
  • Toohill J, Fenwick J, Gamble J, Creedy DK, Buist A, Turkstra E, Ryding EL. A randomized controlled trial of a psycho-education intervention by midwives in reducing childbirth fear in pregnant women. Birth. 2014; 41(4):384–394. doi:10.1111/birt.12136.
  • Artieta-Pinedo I, Paz-Pascual C, Grandes G, Remiro-Fernandezdegamboa G, Odriozola-Hermosilla I, Bacigalupe A, Payo J. The benefits of antenatal education for the childbirth process in Spain. Nursing Research. 2010; 59(3):194-202. doi:10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181dbbb4e.
  • Smarandache A, Kim THM, Bohr Y, Tamim H. Predictors of a negative labour and birth experience based on a national survey of Canadian women. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2016; 16(1):114. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-0903-2
  • Gagnon AJ, Sandall J. Individual or group antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood or both. Cochrane. 2007; 3:5-24. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002869.pub2.
  • Lally JE, Murtagh MJ, Macphail S, Thomson R. More in hope than expectation: a systematic review of women's expectations and experience of pain relief in labour. BMC Med. 2008; 6(7):1-29. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-6-7.
  • McCrea BH, Wright ME. Satisfaction in childbirth and perceptions of personal control in pain relief during labour. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1999; 29(4):877–884. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00961.x.
  • Ferguson S, Davis D, Browne J. Does antenatal education affect labour and birth? A structured review of the literature. Women Birth. 2013; 26(1):e5-e8. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2012.09.003.
  • Patriajati S, and Sriatmi A. Determinants of Mothers’participation In Antenatal Classes. Jurnal Administrasi Kesehatan Indonesia. 2019; 7(2):139-146. doi:10.20473/jaki.v7i2.2019.139-146
  • Rassin M, Klug E, Nathanzon H, Kan A, Silner D. Cultural differences in child delivery: comparisons between Jewish and Arab women in Israel. Int Nurs Rev. 2009; 56(1):123-130. doi:10.1111/j.1466-7657.2008.00681.x.
  • Kömürcü, N., Berkiten Ergin, A. (2008). Labor pain and management. Istanbul: Bedray Press Publishing Ltd. Şti.
  • Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3:77–100. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  • Miquelutti MA, Cecatti JG, Makuch MY. Antenatal education and the birthing experience of Brazilian women: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013b; 13(1):171. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-13-171.
  • Nahaee J, Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi S, Abbas-Alizadeh F, Martin CR, Martin CJH, Mirghafourvand M, Hassankhani H. Pre-and during-labour predictors of low birth satisfaction among Iranian women: a prospective analytical study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2020; 20(1):1-11. doi:10.1186/s12884-020-03105-5
  • Hassanzadeh R, Abbas-Alizadeh F, Meedya S, Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi S, Mirghafourvand M. Assessment of childbirth preparation classes: a parallel convergent mixed study. Reproductive health. 2019; 16(1):1-7. doi:10.1186/s12978-019-0826-2
  • Jaddoe VW. Antenatal education programmes: Do they work? Lancet. 2009; 374(9693):863-864. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61610-X.
  • Malata A, Hauck Y, Monterosso L, McCaul K. Development and evaluation of a childbirth education programme for Malawian women. J Adv Nurs. 2007; 60(1):67–78. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04380.x.
  • Afshar Y, Wang ET, Mei J, Esakoff TF, Pisarska MD, Gregory KD. Childbirth education class and birth plans are associated with a vaginal delivery. Birth. 2017; 44(1):29-34. doi:10.1111/birt.12263
  • Maimburg RD, Vaeth M, Dürr J, Hvidman L, Olsen J. Randomised trial of structured antenatal training sessions to improve the birth process. BJOG. 2010; 117(8):921–928. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02584.x.
  • Fabian HM, Radestad IJ, Waldestro U. Childbirth and parenthood education classes in Sweden. Women’s opinion and possible outcomes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005; 84(5):436–443. doi:10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00732.x.
  • Bertucci V, Boffo M, Mannarini S, Serena A, Saccardi C, Cosmi E, Andrisani A, Ambrosini G. Assessing the perception of the childbirth experience in Italian women: a contribution to the adaptation of the Childbirth Perception Questionnaire. Midwifery. 2012; 28(2):265–274. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2011.02.009.
  • Mohammad K, Gamble J, Creedy DK. Prevalence and factors associated with the development of antenatal and postnatal depression among Jordanian women. Midwifery. 2011; 27(6):238–245. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2010.10.008.
  • Bazant ES, Koenig M. Women’s satisfaction with delivery care in Nairobi’s informal settlements. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009; 21(2):79–86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzn058.
  • Bryanton J, Gagnon AJ, Johnston C, Hatem M. Predictors of women's perceptions of the childbirth experience. JOGNN. 2008; 37(1):24–34. doi:10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00203.x.
  • Caughey AB, Cheyney M. Home and birth center birth in the United States: time for greater collaboration across models of care. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2019; 133(5):1033-1050. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003215
  • Lowe NK. The nature of labor pain. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 186(5):16–24. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(02)70179-8.
  • Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Libr. 2011; 16(2):1-15. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub3.
  • Stapleton LRT, Schetter CD, Westling E, Rini C, Glynn LM, Hobel CJ, Sandman C. Perceived partner support in pregnancy predicts lower maternal and infant distress. J Fam Psychol. 2012; 26(3): 453–463. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028332.
  • World Health Organization (WHO) Reproductive Health Library. (2014, Jul 4). Recommendations for augmentation of labour. Retrived December 1, 2020, from http://apps.who.int/rhl/pregnancy_childbirth/childbirth/routine_care/cd000330/en/WHO.
  • Vural G, Erenel AŞ. Why Has Medicalization of Birth Increased or Decreased?. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Nursing. 2017; 4(2).
  • Serhatlioğlu SG, Karahan N. Birth Satisfaction and Affecting Factors. International Refereed Journal Of Gynaecological Diseases And Maternal Child Health. 2018. Doi: 10.17367/Jacsd.2018.1.8.
  • Cheung W, Ip WY, Chan D. Maternal anxiety and feelings of control during labour: A study of Chinese first-time pregnant women. Midwifery. 2007; 23:123–30. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2006.05.001.
  • Çoker H. Natural birth. Istanbul, Inkılap Bookstore. 2015; 51-56.