Do antenatal preparation and obstetric complications and procedures interact to affect birth experience and postnatal mental health?
Antenatal preparation
Birth experience
Complications
Postnatal mental health
Procedures
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Jul 2023
27 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
03
07
2022
accepted:
11
07
2023
medline:
31
7
2023
pubmed:
28
7
2023
entrez:
27
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Antenatal preparation is commonly offered to women in pregnancy in the United Kingdom, but the content is highly variable, with some programmes orientated towards 'normal birth', whilst others may incorporate information about complications and procedures (broader focus). However, the impact of this variability on birth experience has not been explored. We examined the relationship between the content of antenatal preparation received and birth experience, taking into account obstetric complications and procedures. As birth experience can have a profound impact on a mother's postnatal well-being, we also investigated associations with mothers' postnatal mood and anxiety. N = 253 first-time mothers completed a cross-sectional survey measuring demographic and clinical factors, antenatal preparation content (categorised as normality-focused or broader-focused), obstetric complications and procedures experienced, birth experience (measured using three separate indices; the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire, emotional experiences, and presence/absence of birth trauma), postnatal depression and anxiety, and qualitative information on how the COVID-19 pandemic had affected birth experience. Regarding birth experience, receiving more broader-focused preparation was associated with a more positive birth experience irrespective of complications/procedures experienced, while receiving only normality-focused preparation was beneficial in the context of fewer complications/procedures. Regarding birth trauma, receiving more broader-focused preparation was associated with lower likelihood of reporting birth as traumatic only in the context of more complications/procedures. Degree of normality-focused preparation was unrelated to experience of birth trauma. Lastly, while more complications/procedures were associated with greater anxiety and low mood, only greater normality-focused preparation was linked with better postnatal mental health. Antenatal preparation including both normality- and broader-focused information is positively related to women's birth experience. While normality-focused preparation seems most beneficial if fewer complications/procedures are experienced, broader-focused preparation may be most beneficial in the context of a greater number of complications/procedures. As complications/procedures are often unpredictable, offering broader-focused preparation routinely is likely to benefit women's birth experience. This antenatal preparation should be freely available and easily accessible.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Antenatal preparation is commonly offered to women in pregnancy in the United Kingdom, but the content is highly variable, with some programmes orientated towards 'normal birth', whilst others may incorporate information about complications and procedures (broader focus). However, the impact of this variability on birth experience has not been explored. We examined the relationship between the content of antenatal preparation received and birth experience, taking into account obstetric complications and procedures. As birth experience can have a profound impact on a mother's postnatal well-being, we also investigated associations with mothers' postnatal mood and anxiety.
METHODS
METHODS
N = 253 first-time mothers completed a cross-sectional survey measuring demographic and clinical factors, antenatal preparation content (categorised as normality-focused or broader-focused), obstetric complications and procedures experienced, birth experience (measured using three separate indices; the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire, emotional experiences, and presence/absence of birth trauma), postnatal depression and anxiety, and qualitative information on how the COVID-19 pandemic had affected birth experience.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Regarding birth experience, receiving more broader-focused preparation was associated with a more positive birth experience irrespective of complications/procedures experienced, while receiving only normality-focused preparation was beneficial in the context of fewer complications/procedures. Regarding birth trauma, receiving more broader-focused preparation was associated with lower likelihood of reporting birth as traumatic only in the context of more complications/procedures. Degree of normality-focused preparation was unrelated to experience of birth trauma. Lastly, while more complications/procedures were associated with greater anxiety and low mood, only greater normality-focused preparation was linked with better postnatal mental health.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Antenatal preparation including both normality- and broader-focused information is positively related to women's birth experience. While normality-focused preparation seems most beneficial if fewer complications/procedures are experienced, broader-focused preparation may be most beneficial in the context of a greater number of complications/procedures. As complications/procedures are often unpredictable, offering broader-focused preparation routinely is likely to benefit women's birth experience. This antenatal preparation should be freely available and easily accessible.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37501081
doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05846-5
pii: 10.1186/s12884-023-05846-5
pmc: PMC10375777
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
543Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010 Dec 10;10:81
pubmed: 21143961
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
BJOG. 2020 Jun;127(7):886-896
pubmed: 32034849
Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8(1):70-94
pubmed: 24489596
Midwifery. 2020 Sep;88:102759
pubmed: 32485502
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2014 Dec;5(4):160-4
pubmed: 25433823
J Vasc Nurs. 1999 Jun;17(2):41-9
pubmed: 10603825
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2022 Jun;43(2):228-234
pubmed: 34008474
Clin Psychol Rev. 2009 Nov;29(7):617-22
pubmed: 19709792
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
Health Psychol. 1985;4(3):249-88
pubmed: 4029107
Psychol Med. 2010 Nov;40(11):1849-59
pubmed: 20059799
J Clin Nurs. 2018 Mar;27(5-6):1250-1261
pubmed: 29149455
BJOG. 2009 Aug;116(9):1167-76
pubmed: 19538406
J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jul;93(3):353-62
pubmed: 16059425
Midwifery. 2014 Aug;30(8):935-41
pubmed: 24793491
Br J Clin Psychol. 1993 Nov;32(4):469-83
pubmed: 8298545
Support Care Cancer. 2008 Jan;16(1):37-45
pubmed: 17534670
Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 28;4:20
pubmed: 25875612
Nurs Health Sci. 2013 Sep;15(3):398-405
pubmed: 23480423
Midwifery. 2022 Jun;109:103295
pubmed: 35364368