The Effect of Pregnancy Process on Marital Adjustment And Sexuality

Abstract

Objective: The study aimed to determine the relationship between the sexuality and marital adjustment of pregnant women and their husbands in pregnancy. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted with 120 pregnant women and their husbands. The data were collected using a participant information form, the Libido Scoring System (LSS) and Marital Adjustment Scale (MAS). Paired-samples t-test, and Spearman’s correlation analysis were used. Results: The mean LSS score in the men was found as 7.76±1.47 before pregnancy and 6.60±3.94 during pregnancy. While the same score was 9.85±1.41 before pregnancy among pregnant women, it decreased to 8.53±1.62 during pregnancy. LSS results proved good levels of sexual desire, and the decrease in the sexual desire levels during pregnancy was statistically significant for the pregnant women and their husbands (p=0.001; p=0.001). A positive relationship was found between the sexual desire levels of the pregnant women before and during pregnancy (p=0.000), and a negative one between their marital adjustment levels before and during pregnancy (p=0.003; p=0.013). The pregnant women were found significant and positive relationship between the marital adjustment levels before and during pregnancy (p=0.000). There was a positive relationship between the sexual desire levels of the husbands before and during pregnancy (p=0.001). Additionally, a strong positive relationship was found between the marital adjustment levels before and during pregnancy in the spouses (p=0.000). Conclusions: The case that the women and their husbands were healthy before pregnancy, in terms of sexual life and marital adjustment, had a positive effect on the pregnancy period.

Keywords

• Marital Adjustment
• Sexuality During Pregnancy
• Sexual Desire

Gebelik Sürecinin Evlilik Uyumuna ve Cinselliğe Etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, gebe kadınların ve eşlerinin gebelikte cinsellik ve evlilik uyumu arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemeyi amaçlamıştır. Yöntem: Kesitsel tipteki bu çalışma 120 gebe ve eşleri ile yapılmıştır. Veriler katılımcı bilgi formu, Libido Puanlama Sistemi (LSS) ve Evlilik Uyum Ölçeği (MAS) kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Eşleştirilmiş örneklem t testi ve Spearman korelasyon analizi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Erkeklerde ortalama LSS puanı gebelik öncesi 7.76±1.47, gebelik sırasında 6.60±3.94 olarak bulundu. Gebelerde aynı puan gebelik öncesinde 9.85±1.41 iken gebelikte 8.53±1.62 bulundu. LSS sonuçları cinsel istek düzeylerinin iyi olduğunu kanıtladı ve gebelik sırasında cinsel istek düzeyindeki azalma gebeler ve eşleri için istatistiksel olarak anlamlı saptandı (p=0.001; p=0.001). Gebelerin gebelik öncesi ve gebelik sırasındaki cinsel istek düzeyleri arasında pozitif (p=0.000), gebelik öncesi ve gebelik sırasındaki evlilik uyum düzeyleri arasında negatif (p=0.003; p=0.013) ilişki bulundu. Gebelerin gebelik öncesi ve gebelik sırasındaki evlilik uyum düzeyleri arasında anlamlı ve pozitif bir ilişki bulundu (p=0.001). Eşlerin gebelik öncesi ve gebelik sırasındaki cinsel istek düzeyleri arasında pozitif bir ilişki vardı (p=0.001). Ayrıca eşlerin gebelik öncesi ve gebelik sırasındaki evlilik uyum düzeyleri arasında pozitif yönde güçlü bir ilişki bulundu (p=0.001). Sonuç: Kadınların ve eşlerinin gebelik öncesi cinsel yaşam ve evlilik uyumu açısından sağlıklı olmaları gebelik sürecini olumlu yönde etkilemiştir.

Keywords

• Evlilik Uyum
• Gebelikte Cinsellik
• Cinsel İstek

References

1. 1. Efe H, Bozkurt M, Sahin L, Mutlu MF, Api M, & Çetin A. The effects of pregnancy on the sexual life of Turkish women. Proc Obstet Gynecol 2014;4:1–11
2. 2. Liu HL, Hsu P, Chen KH. Sexual activity during pregnancy in Taiwan: a qualitative study. Sex Med. 2013;1:54–61
3. 3. Yangin, B.H. & Eroğlu, K. Investigation of the sexual behavior of pregnant women residing in squatter neighborhoods in Southwestern Turkey: A qualitative study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 2011;37:190-205
4. 4. Ebrahimian A, Heydari M, Saberi Zafar Ghandi MB, & Delavari S. Comparing Sexual dysfunctions in men before and during their wife's pregnancy. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil. 2012; 15:19–25.
5. 5. Sossah L. Sexual behavior during pregnancy: a descriptive correlational study among pregnant women. Eur J Res Med Sci. 2014;2:16–27.
6. 6. Yeniel A. O, Petri E. Pregnancy, childebirth and sexual function: preceptions and facts. International Urogynecology Journal, 2014;25: 5-14.
7. 7. Pirdadeh-Beiranvand S, Behboodi Moghadam Z, Salsali M. Alavi Majd H, Birjandi M, & Khalesi Bostani Z. Prevalence of fear of childbirth and its associated factors in Primigravid women: a cross- sectional study. Shiraz E-Med J. 2017;18:e61896.
8. 8. Chang SR, Chen KH, Lin HH, & Yu HJ. Comparison of overall sexual function, sexual intercourse/activity, sexual satisfaction, and sexual desire during the three trimesters of pregnancy and assessment of their determinants. J Sex Med. 2011;8: 2859–2867

9. 9. Rados SN, Vranes HS & Sunjic M. Limited role of body satisfaction and body image self402 consciousness in sexual frequency and satisfaction in pregnant women. The Journal of Sex Research 2104; 51: 532-541.
10. 10. Gałązka, I., Drosdzol-Cop, A., 404 Naworska, B., Czajkowska, M., & Skrzypulec-Plinta, V. (2015). Changes in the sexual function during pregnancy. J Sex Med. 2015;12:445-454.
11. 11. Çömez-İkican T, Coşansu G, Erdoğan G, Küçük L, & Bilim-Özel İ. The relationship of marital adjustment and sexual satisfaction with depressive symptoms in women. Sex Disabil 2020;38:247–260.
12. 12. Yanikkerem E, Göker A, Ustgorul S, & Karakuş A. Evaluation of sexual functions and marital adjustment of pregnant women in Turkey. Int J Impot Res 2016;28: 176–183
13. 13. Bozdemir N, & Özcan S. Sexuality and overview of sexual health. Turk. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2011;5: 37–46
14. 14. Nourani S, Jonaidy E, Shakeri MT, & Mokhber N. Sexual satisfaction in fertile and infertile women attending state clinics in mashad. Journal of Reproduction and Infertility, 2010;10: 269–277
15. 15. Byers ES. Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: a longitudinal study of individual in longterm relationships. J. Sex Res. 2005;42: 113–118
16. 16. Öztürk CŞ, & Arkar H. The relationships between marital adjustment and sexual satisfaction in married couples. Lit. Symp. 2014;1: 16–24
17. 17. Kısa S, Zeyneloğlu S, Yilmaz D, & Güner T. Quality of sexual life and its effect on marital adjustment of Turkish women in pregnancy. J Sex Marital Ther 2014;40: 309–322.
18. 18. Yalçın H. Relationship between adaptation of the marriage and demographic characteristics. J Res Educ Teaching 2014;3: 250–261
19. 19. Api M, Api O, Görgen H, Çetin A, & Yayla M. New diagnostic instrument for sexual function assess in menopausal women, Journal of the Turkish- German Gynecological Association 2005; 6 : 24-29.
20. 20. Arıca SG, Alkan, S, Bali S, Mansuroğlu YE, & Özer C. The effect of pregnancy over sexual life. Turkish Family Physican 2011;2 : 19-24.
21. 21. Sadi-Bilen Z. & Aksu H. Examining the sexual life of spouses and the factors affecting them during pregnancy. Anatolian Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences, 2016;19: 128-138
22. 22. Akgül A, Çevik O. İstatistiksel Analiz Teknikleri: SPSS’te İşletme Yönetimi Uygulamaları. 2. Baskı. Ankara: Emek Ofset; 2003. s.72
23. 23. Kılıç S., 2016 Cronbach’ın Alfa Güvenirlik Katsayısı Journal of Mood Disorders (JMOOD) 2016;6(1):47-8
24. 24. Locke HJ, Wallace KM . Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: their reliability and validity. Marriage Fam Living 1959; 21: 251–255.
25. 25. Tutarel-Kışlak Ş. Reliability and validity of marital adjustment scale. Psychiatry Psychol Psychopharmacol 1999; 7: 50–57 [in Turkish]
26. 26. Babazadeh R, Najmabadi KM, & Masomi Z. Changes in sexual desire and activity during pregnancy among women in Shahroud, Iran. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013; 120:82-4.
27. 27. Panea-Pizarro I, Domínguez-Martin AT, Barragán-Prieto V, Martos-Sánchez A, & López- Espuela F. Behaviour and attitudes towards the sexuality of the pregnant woman during the last trimester. Phenomenological study. Aten Primaria. 2019;51:127-134.
28. 28. Bouzouita F, Ellouze H, El Kefi I, Chaari C, Ben Cheikh MW, Krir S, Eddhif B. & Bouguerra A. Oumaya sexuality of the tunisian pregnant women: facts between myth and reality. Sexologies 2018;27: e103-e109
29. 29. Oche OM, Abdullahi Z, Tunau K, Ango JT, Yahaya M, Raji İA. Sexual activities of pregnant women attending antenatal clinic of a tertiary hospital in North-West Nigeria. Pan African Medical Journal. 2020;37:140. 10.11604/pamj.2020.37.140.25471.
30. 30. Hanafy S, Srour NE, Mostafa T. Female sexual dysfunction across the three pregnancy trimesters: an Egyptian study. Sex Health. 2014;11:240-3. doi: 10.1071/SH13153. PMID: 24919550.
31. 31. Ninivaggio C, Rogers RG, Leeman L, Migliaccio L, Teaf D, & Qualls C. Sexual function 468 changes during pregnancy. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2017;28:923–929.
32. 32. Fernández-Carrasco F. J, Rodríguez-Díaz L, González-Mey U, Vázquez-Lara, Jm, Gómez-SalgadoJ & Parrón-Carreño T. Changes in Sexual Desire in Women and Their Partners during Pregnancy. Journal of clinical medicine, 2020; 9: 526. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020526
33. 33. Kiemtorè S, Ouèdraogo I, Ouattara A, Zamanè H, Sawadogo YA. Sex during pregnancy: opinions, attitudes and practices among pregnant women . J Women's Health Care 2016;5:343-353 doi:10.4172/2167-0420.1000343
34. 34. Torkestani F, Hadavand SH, Khodashenase Z, Besharat S, Davati A, Karimi Z & Zafarghandi N. Frequency and Perception of Sexual Activity during Pregnancy in Iranian Couples. International journal of fertility & sterility, 2012; 6: 107–110
35. 35. Bello FA, Olayemi O, Aimakhu CO, Adekunle AO. Effect of pregnancy and childbirth on sexuality of women in ibadan, Nigeria. ISRN Obstet Gynecol. 2011;3:2-6. doi: 10.5402/2011/856586.
36. 36. Sacomori C, & Cardoso FL. Sexual initiative and intercourse behavior during pregnancy among Brazilian women: A retrospective study. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 2010;36:124-126.
37. 37. Khalesi ZB, Bokaie M, & Attari SM. Effect of pregnancy on sexual function of couples. Afr. Health Sci. 2018;18:227-234. doi:10.4314/ahs.v18i2.5