Negative perceptions and emotional impact of striae gravidarum among pregnant women.
emotional impact
perceptions
pregnancy
stretch marks
striae distensae
striae gravidarum
Journal
International journal of women's dermatology
ISSN: 2352-6475
Titre abrégé: Int J Womens Dermatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101654170
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
09
07
2021
revised:
25
09
2021
accepted:
09
10
2021
entrez:
14
1
2022
pubmed:
15
1
2022
medline:
15
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The impact of striae gravidarum (SG), or stretch marks of pregnancy, on quality of life (QoL) is unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate how SG affect QoL in pregnant women. In this cross-sectional survey study of healthy pregnant women who developed SG during their current pregnancy, we asked about the impact of lesions on emotional, psychological, and life-quality facets. Spearman product-moment correlation coefficients were generated to determine the strength of relationships between variables. We analyzed 116 valid surveys. Participants reported permanency of SG as the top physical concern (n = 87; 75%). With regard to severity, nearly three-quarters of participants rated their lesions as very prominent (n = 24; 21%) or moderate (n = 57; 49%). Among the life-quality facets queried, embarrassment/self-consciousness was the most frequently associated with SG, with over one-third of participants reporting "a lot" (n = 19; 16%) or a "moderate" (n = 26; 22%) amount of embarrassment/self-consciousness related to having SG. Lesion severity significantly correlated with the degree of embarrassment/self-consciousness ( SG can be associated with a host of negative reactions reflecting increased psychological and emotional distress, including embarrassment and decreased QoL. These consequences may compound the emotional stress of pregnancy, potentially warranting psychological support and adjustment strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The impact of striae gravidarum (SG), or stretch marks of pregnancy, on quality of life (QoL) is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to investigate how SG affect QoL in pregnant women.
METHODS
METHODS
In this cross-sectional survey study of healthy pregnant women who developed SG during their current pregnancy, we asked about the impact of lesions on emotional, psychological, and life-quality facets. Spearman product-moment correlation coefficients were generated to determine the strength of relationships between variables.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We analyzed 116 valid surveys. Participants reported permanency of SG as the top physical concern (n = 87; 75%). With regard to severity, nearly three-quarters of participants rated their lesions as very prominent (n = 24; 21%) or moderate (n = 57; 49%). Among the life-quality facets queried, embarrassment/self-consciousness was the most frequently associated with SG, with over one-third of participants reporting "a lot" (n = 19; 16%) or a "moderate" (n = 26; 22%) amount of embarrassment/self-consciousness related to having SG. Lesion severity significantly correlated with the degree of embarrassment/self-consciousness (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
SG can be associated with a host of negative reactions reflecting increased psychological and emotional distress, including embarrassment and decreased QoL. These consequences may compound the emotional stress of pregnancy, potentially warranting psychological support and adjustment strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35028366
doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2021.10.015
pii: S2352-6475(21)00137-4
pmc: PMC8714569
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
685-691Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None.
Références
Lancet. 1959 Sep 26;2(7100):436-9
pubmed: 14433675
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jan;196(1):62.e1-5
pubmed: 17240237
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980 Jan;65(1):22-9
pubmed: 7350573
Br J Dermatol. 2018 Mar;178(3):749-760
pubmed: 28815554
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2004 Jul;18(4):435-9
pubmed: 15196157
Dev Neurorehabil. 2007 Apr-Jun;10(2):133-41
pubmed: 17687986
BMC Res Notes. 2012 Aug 21;5:450
pubmed: 22905939
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Oct;73(4):699-700
pubmed: 26369842
Dermatology. 2001;203(2):124-30
pubmed: 11586010
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995 May;32(5 Pt 3):S26-30
pubmed: 7738224
Br J Dermatol. 2006 Nov;155(5):965-9
pubmed: 17034526
Br J Dermatol. 2006 Apr;154(4):680-91
pubmed: 16536812
Aesthet Surg J. 2005 Nov-Dec;25(6):593-600
pubmed: 19338863
J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1972 Dec;79(12):1113-4
pubmed: 4646568
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016 Oct;30(10):1760-1767
pubmed: 27282435
Br J Dermatol. 2015 Dec;173(6):1420-30
pubmed: 26179468
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Dec;51(6):881-5
pubmed: 15583577
Dermatol Surg. 2012 Nov;38(11):1823-8
pubmed: 22913429
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003;4(12):833-42
pubmed: 14640776
Int J Clin Pract. 2006 Aug;60(8):984-92
pubmed: 16893440
J Invest Dermatol. 2014 Jun;134(6):1542-1551
pubmed: 24284419
Dermatol Surg. 2021 Oct 1;47(10):1408-1410
pubmed: 34313640
Dermatol Online J. 2011 Jan 15;17(1):1
pubmed: 21272492
Dermatol Surg. 2009 Apr;35(4):563-73
pubmed: 19400881
Clin Dermatol. 2006 Mar-Apr;24(2):97-100
pubmed: 16487881
Br J Dermatol. 2014 Mar;170(3):527-47
pubmed: 24125059
Australas J Dermatol. 2004 Aug;45(3):155-9; quiz 160-1
pubmed: 15250891
Br J Dermatol. 2015 Mar;172(3):606-15
pubmed: 25255817