open access

Vol 92, No 6 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-03-19
Get Citation

Evaluation of the effect of Birth Preparation Program on birth satisfaction with „Salmon’s Item List” scale

Gökçe Turan1, Nurullah Peker2, İhsan Bağlı3
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2021.0010
·
Pubmed: 33757152
·
Ginekol Pol 2021;92(6):417-422.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gazi University, School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dicle University, Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakır, Turkey
  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gazi Yaşargil Training and Research Hospital, Diyarbakır, Turkey

open access

Vol 92, No 6 (2021)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2021-03-19

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of a birth preparation program on birth satisfaction.
Material and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted with patients who applied to our hospital between January 2018 and January 2019. A total of 164 pregnant women (Study Group) who applied for the birth preparation program and completed all training in our hospital and 152 pregnant women who did not apply for the birth preparation program and who did not know about such training (Control Group) were included in the study. Demographical data and obstetric parameters of the groups were recorded. All patients were evaluated with the Visual Analog Scale and Salmon’s Item List scale 48 hours after the delivery. The scores of both groups were compared.
Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, gravida, parity, gestational week of birth, the birth weight of infants, and 5th-minute APGAR scores. It was found that the Visual Analog Scale scores of the Control Group were significantly higher than in the Study Group. The Salmon’s Item List scores of the Study Group were significantly higher than those of the patients in the Control Group (< 0.01).
Conclusions: The birth preparation program increases satisfaction during labor and decreases the traumas that may occur in the following births and increase comfort in the postpartum period. For this reason, such programs must be applied commonly to ensure that women can face both the birth and postpartum processes comfortably.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of a birth preparation program on birth satisfaction.
Material and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted with patients who applied to our hospital between January 2018 and January 2019. A total of 164 pregnant women (Study Group) who applied for the birth preparation program and completed all training in our hospital and 152 pregnant women who did not apply for the birth preparation program and who did not know about such training (Control Group) were included in the study. Demographical data and obstetric parameters of the groups were recorded. All patients were evaluated with the Visual Analog Scale and Salmon’s Item List scale 48 hours after the delivery. The scores of both groups were compared.
Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, gravida, parity, gestational week of birth, the birth weight of infants, and 5th-minute APGAR scores. It was found that the Visual Analog Scale scores of the Control Group were significantly higher than in the Study Group. The Salmon’s Item List scores of the Study Group were significantly higher than those of the patients in the Control Group (< 0.01).
Conclusions: The birth preparation program increases satisfaction during labor and decreases the traumas that may occur in the following births and increase comfort in the postpartum period. For this reason, such programs must be applied commonly to ensure that women can face both the birth and postpartum processes comfortably.

Get Citation

Keywords

childbirth satisfaction; Salmon’s Item List score; birth preparation; labor pain; antenatal education

About this article
Title

Evaluation of the effect of Birth Preparation Program on birth satisfaction with „Salmon’s Item List” scale

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 92, No 6 (2021)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

417-422

Published online

2021-03-19

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2021.0010

Pubmed

33757152

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2021;92(6):417-422.

Keywords

childbirth satisfaction
Salmon’s Item List score
birth preparation
labor pain
antenatal education

Authors

Gökçe Turan
Nurullah Peker
İhsan Bağlı

References (25)
  1. Moos MK. Prenatal care: limitations and opportunities. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2006; 35(2): 278–285.
  2. Gagnon AJ, Sandall J. Individual or group antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood, or both. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(3): CD002869.
  3. Sioma-Markowska U, Poręba R, Machura M, et al. Paternal engagement during childbirth depending on the manner of their preparation. Ginekol Pol. 2016; 87(9): 639–643.
  4. Maliszewska K, Świątkowska-Freund M, Bidzan M, et al. Relationship, social support, and personality as psychosocial determinants of the risk for postpartum blues. Ginekol Pol. 2016; 87(6): 442–447.
  5. Ip WY, Tang CSk, Goggins WB. An educational intervention to improve women's ability to cope with childbirth. J Clin Nurs. 2009; 18(15): 2125–2135.
  6. Kızılırmak A, Başer M. The effect of education given to primigravida women on fear of childbirth. Appl Nurs Res. 2016; 29: 19–24.
  7. Miquelutti MA, Cecatti JG, Makuch MY. Antenatal education and the birthing experience of Brazilian women: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13: 171.
  8. Slade P, MacPherson SA, Hume A, et al. Expectations, experiences and satisfaction with labour. Br J Clin Psychol. 1993; 32(4): 469–483.
  9. Fabian HM, Rådestad IJ, Waldenström U. Childbirth and parenthood education classes in Sweden. Women's opinion and possible outcomes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005; 84(5): 436–443.
  10. Sawyer A, Ayers S, Abbott J, et al. Measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth: a comparative review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13: 108.
  11. Bertucci V, Boffo M, Mannarini S, et al. 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.
  12. Salmon P, Miller R, Drew NC. Women's anticipation and experience of childbirth: the independence of fulfillment, unpleasantness and pain. Br J Med Psychol. 1990; 63 ( Pt 3): 255–259.
  13. Stadlmayr W, Bitzer J, Hösli I, et al. Birth as a multidimensional experience: comparison of the English- and German-language versions of Salmon's Item List. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2001; 22(4): 205–214.
  14. Spaich S, Welzel G, Berlit S, et al. Mode of delivery and its influence on women's satisfaction with childbirth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013; 170(2): 401–406.
  15. Dannenbring D, Stevens MJ, House AE. Predictors of childbirth pain and maternal satisfaction. J Behav Med. 1997; 20(2): 127–142.
  16. Waldenström U. Experience of labor and birth in 1111 women. J Psychosom Res. 1999; 47(5): 471–482.
  17. Koutsospyros D, Epstein L. Pain in Pregnancy and Labor. Academic Pain Medicine. 2019: 305–309.
  18. Hodnett ED. Pain and women's satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186(5 Suppl Nature): S160–S172.
  19. Lally JE, Murtagh MJ, Macphail S, et al. More in hope than expectation: a systematic review of women's expectations and experience of pain relief in labour. BMC Med. 2008; 6: 7.
  20. Kronborg H, Maimburg RD, Væth M. Antenatal training to improve breast feeding: a randomised trial. Midwifery. 2012; 28(6): 784–790.
  21. Yang X, Gao LL, Ip WY, et al. Predictors of breast feeding self-efficacy in the immediate postpartum period: A cross-sectional study. Midwifery. 2016; 41: 1–8.
  22. METE S, ÇİÇEK Ö, TOKAT MA, et al. The Effect of Childbirth Preparation Classes on Fear of Childbirth, Birth Preference and Preparation of Labor. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Nursing. 2017; 9(3): 201–206.
  23. Serçekuş P, Başkale H. Effects of antenatal education on fear of childbirth, maternal self-efficacy and parental attachment. Midwifery. 2016; 34: 166–172.
  24. Walker DS, Visger JM, Rossie D. Contemporary childbirth education models. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2009; 54(6): 469–476.
  25. Maimburg RD, Vaeth M, Dürr J, et al. Randomised trial of structured antenatal training sessions to improve the birth process. BJOG. 2010; 117(8): 921–928.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl