Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Spouse Support Perception of Pregnants and Associeted Factors

Year 2021, Volume: 15 Issue: 4, 800 - 808, 20.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.21763/tjfmpc.971774

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the spouse support perception of the pregnant women registered to the provincial centres of Mersin, and the associated factors. Methods: This is a sectional study. It has been carried out at 22 Family Medicine Departments of the provincial centre of Mersin. 376 pregnant women were included in this study. The study data were collected by the researcher between 01.01.2018 and 01.09.2018 using Personal Information Form, Spouse Support Scale. The normality control of the data was carried out with ShapiroWilk test. For the average scores of the spouse support scale, Student's t test was used in the comparisons of two independent groups while One-way Analysis of Variance |ANOVA] was applied in the comparisons of more than two groups. Among post-hoc tests, Tukey test was preferred. Statistical significance was accepted as 0.05 for all the analyses. Results: 27,9% of the pregnant women included in this study were between 25 and 29 while 42 % were high school graduates. Concerning the family types, 87,5% of the pregnant women lived in a nuclear family while 52,4% were married for 5 years at least. It was determined that the total average score of the Spouse Support Scale was 68.99±10.8 and that the pregnant women included in this study had high spouse support perception. However, there were statisticalty significant differences in the total average scores of the Spouse Suppoıt Scal in terms of the ages, educational levels, famiIy types, ages of husbands, number of living children and voluntary pregnancy of the pregnant women [p<0,05]. Conclusion: It has been inferred that pregnant women and health care personnel who provide service to the former should have increased awareness for spouse support during pregancy. To this end, expectant fathers should be encoraged to attend to preconceptional care and prenatal care services.

References

  • 1. Feeney BC, Collins NL. A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2015;19(2):113–147.
  • 2. Gul B, Riaz MA, Batool N, Yasmin H, Riaz M N. Social support and health related quality of life among pregnant women. J Pak Medassoc 2018; 68(6): 872-875.
  • 3. Sokoya M, Farotimi A, Ojewole F. Women’s perception of husbands’ support during pregnancy, labour and delivery. IOSR Journal of Nursing and Health Science 2014; 3(3):45-50.
  • 4. Matseke MG, Ruiter RAC,Barylski N, Rodriguez VJ, Jones DL,Weiss SM,et al. A qualitative exploration of the meaning and understanding of male involvement in pregnancy- related care among men in Rural South Afrika. Journal of Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences 2017;11,1:215-230.
  • 5. Höglund B, Larsson M. Professional and social support enhances maternal wellbeing in women with intellectual disability - A Swedish interview study. Midwifery 2014; 30(11): 1118-23.
  • 6. Bäckström C, Thorstensson S, Mårtensson LB, Grimming R, Nyblin Y, Golsäte M. To be able to support her, I must feel calmand safe’: pregnant women’s partners perceptions of professional support during pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2017; 17, 234.
  • 7. Mersin İl Halk Sağlığı 2016 verileri.
  • 8. Blanche MT, Durrheim K, Painter D. Research in Practice: Applied Methods For The Social Sciences. South Africa: UCT Press.2006. 9. Yıldırım İ.Eş destek ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi 2004; 3(22):19-25.
  • 10. Metin A, Pasinlioğlu T. The relationship between perceived social support and prenatal attachment in pregnant women. JACSD 2016;(5):49-66.
  • 11. Bernard O, Gibso RC, McCaw-Binns A, Reece J, Coore-Desai C,Pellington S,et al. Antenatal depressive symptoms in Jamaica associated with limited perceived partner and other social support: A Cross-Sectional study. Plos One 2018; 13(3); e0194338.
  • 12. Yurdakul M, Perceived social support in pregnant adolescents in Mersin area in Turkey. Pak J Med Sci.2018; 34(1):115-120.
  • 13. Üner R.Spousal social support fort he pregnant women recipient’s ad providers’perspectives on perceived and desired social support.Master of Science in Social Psychology, Middle Esast Tecnical University 1994.
  • 14. Ölçer Z, Bakır N, Oskay Ü. Yüksek riskli gebelerin öz yeterlilik ve sosyal destek algıları. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 2016;19(1):25-33.
  • 15. Iliyasu Z, Abubakar IS, Galadanci HS, Aliyu MH. Birth preparedness, complication readiness and Fathers’Participation in maternity care in a Northern Nigerian community. African Journal of Reproductive Health 2010;14(1):21-32.
  • 16. Nazari M, Ghasemi S, Vafaei H,Fararouei M. The perceived social support and its relationship with some of the demographic characteristics in Primigravida pregnant women. International Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 2015; 7(9);141-145.
  • 17. Cohen K, Capponi S, Nyamukapa M, Baxter JC, Worly B. Partner involvement during pregnancy and maternal health behaviors. Matern Child Health 2016; 20:2291-2298.
  • 18. Peter P, Mola CL, Matos M B, Coelho F M, Pinheiro K A, Silva R A, et.al. Association between perceived social support and anxiety in pregnant adolescents. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria 2017; 39: 21–27.
  • 19. Cheng ER, Rifas-Shiman SL, Perkins ME, Rich-Edwards JW, Gillman MW, Wright R,et al. The Influence of antenatal partner support on pregnancy outcomes. Journal of Women’s Health.2016; 25(7); 672-679.
  • 20. Çıldır G, Karakoç A, Karaca S. Babaların Bebek Bakımına Katılımının Değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Hakemli Akademik Spor Sağlık ve Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi 2014;10(4);1-15.
  • 21. Tadesse M, Boltena AT, Asamoah B O. Husbands’ partcipaton in birth preparedness and complicaton readiness and associated factors in Wolaita Sodo town, Southern Ethiopia.Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med.2018;11,10(1): e1-e8.
  • 22. Güngör İ. Doğum öncesi hazırlık eğitimlerinde babaların yeri ve gereksinimleri. Turkiye Klinikleri J Obstet Womens Health Dis Nurs-Special Topics.2015; 1(1): 44-51.
  • 23. Kanığ M, Eroğlu K. Gebelerde algılanan sosyal destek düzeyi ve etkileyen faktörler. Hemşirelikte Eğitim ve Araştırma Dergisi 2019;16(2):125-133
  • 24. Özdemir F, Bodur S, Nazik E, Nazik H, Kanbur A.Hiperemezis Gravidarum tanısı alan gebelerin sosyal destek düzeyinin belirlenmesi. TAF Prev Med Bull. 2010;9(5):463-470.
  • 25. Forbes F, Wynter K, Wade C, Zeleke BM, Fisher J. Male partner attendance at antenatal care and adherence to antenatal care guidelines: secondary analysis of 2011 Ethiopian demographic and health survey data. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.2018; 18(145); 2-11.

Gebelerin Eş Desteği Algıları ve İlişkili Faktörler

Year 2021, Volume: 15 Issue: 4, 800 - 808, 20.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.21763/tjfmpc.971774

Abstract

Amaç: Araştırma, Mersin Merkez ilçelerine kayıtlı gebelerin, eş desteği algıları ve ilişkili faktörlerin değerlendirilmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır. Yöntem: Araştırma kesitsel tipte olup, Mersin İli Merkez ilçelerine bağlı 22 Aile Hekimliği biriminde yürütülmüştür. Çalışmaya 376 gebe dahil edilmiştir. Araştırma verileri 01.01.2018-01.08.2018 tarihleri arasında, Kişisel Bilgi Formu ve Eş Desteği Ölçeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Verilerin normallik kontrolü ShapiroWilk testi ile yapılmıştır. Eş desteği ölçeği puan ortalamaları için bağımsız iki gruba ait karşılaştırmalarda Student's t test, ikiden fazla gruba ait karşılaştırmalarda ise Tek Yönlü Varyans Analizi (ANOVA), post-hoc testlerden ise Tukey testi kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin güvenirliği Cronbach's Alpha katsayıları ile bildirilmiştir. Bütün analizlerde istatistik anlamlıIık seviyesi 0.05 olarak alınmıştır. Bulgular: Gebelerin %27,9'u 25-29 yaşları arasında ve %42'si lise mezunudur. Gebelerin aile tipi incelendiğinde, %87,5'inin çekirdek ailede yaşadığı ve %52,4'ünün en az 5 yıldır evli olduğu belirlenmiştir. Eş Desteği Ölçek toplam puan ortalamasının 68,99+10,8 olduğu ve araştırma kapsamına alınan gebelerin eş desteği algısının yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Gebelerin yaşları, öğrenim düzeyleri, aile tipleri, eşlerinin yaşları, yaşayan çocuk sayıları ve isteyerek gebe kalma durumlarına göre Eş Desteği Ölçeği toplam puan ortalamaları bakımından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmuştur [p<0,05]. Sonuç: Gebelerin ve gebelere hizmet sunan sağlık çalışanlarının, gebelikte eş desteği konusunda farkındalığının artırılması sağlanmalıdır. Gebelik öncesi danışmanlık ve doğum öncesi bakım hizmetlerine baba adaylarının katılımı desteklenmelidir.

References

  • 1. Feeney BC, Collins NL. A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2015;19(2):113–147.
  • 2. Gul B, Riaz MA, Batool N, Yasmin H, Riaz M N. Social support and health related quality of life among pregnant women. J Pak Medassoc 2018; 68(6): 872-875.
  • 3. Sokoya M, Farotimi A, Ojewole F. Women’s perception of husbands’ support during pregnancy, labour and delivery. IOSR Journal of Nursing and Health Science 2014; 3(3):45-50.
  • 4. Matseke MG, Ruiter RAC,Barylski N, Rodriguez VJ, Jones DL,Weiss SM,et al. A qualitative exploration of the meaning and understanding of male involvement in pregnancy- related care among men in Rural South Afrika. Journal of Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences 2017;11,1:215-230.
  • 5. Höglund B, Larsson M. Professional and social support enhances maternal wellbeing in women with intellectual disability - A Swedish interview study. Midwifery 2014; 30(11): 1118-23.
  • 6. Bäckström C, Thorstensson S, Mårtensson LB, Grimming R, Nyblin Y, Golsäte M. To be able to support her, I must feel calmand safe’: pregnant women’s partners perceptions of professional support during pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2017; 17, 234.
  • 7. Mersin İl Halk Sağlığı 2016 verileri.
  • 8. Blanche MT, Durrheim K, Painter D. Research in Practice: Applied Methods For The Social Sciences. South Africa: UCT Press.2006. 9. Yıldırım İ.Eş destek ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi 2004; 3(22):19-25.
  • 10. Metin A, Pasinlioğlu T. The relationship between perceived social support and prenatal attachment in pregnant women. JACSD 2016;(5):49-66.
  • 11. Bernard O, Gibso RC, McCaw-Binns A, Reece J, Coore-Desai C,Pellington S,et al. Antenatal depressive symptoms in Jamaica associated with limited perceived partner and other social support: A Cross-Sectional study. Plos One 2018; 13(3); e0194338.
  • 12. Yurdakul M, Perceived social support in pregnant adolescents in Mersin area in Turkey. Pak J Med Sci.2018; 34(1):115-120.
  • 13. Üner R.Spousal social support fort he pregnant women recipient’s ad providers’perspectives on perceived and desired social support.Master of Science in Social Psychology, Middle Esast Tecnical University 1994.
  • 14. Ölçer Z, Bakır N, Oskay Ü. Yüksek riskli gebelerin öz yeterlilik ve sosyal destek algıları. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 2016;19(1):25-33.
  • 15. Iliyasu Z, Abubakar IS, Galadanci HS, Aliyu MH. Birth preparedness, complication readiness and Fathers’Participation in maternity care in a Northern Nigerian community. African Journal of Reproductive Health 2010;14(1):21-32.
  • 16. Nazari M, Ghasemi S, Vafaei H,Fararouei M. The perceived social support and its relationship with some of the demographic characteristics in Primigravida pregnant women. International Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 2015; 7(9);141-145.
  • 17. Cohen K, Capponi S, Nyamukapa M, Baxter JC, Worly B. Partner involvement during pregnancy and maternal health behaviors. Matern Child Health 2016; 20:2291-2298.
  • 18. Peter P, Mola CL, Matos M B, Coelho F M, Pinheiro K A, Silva R A, et.al. Association between perceived social support and anxiety in pregnant adolescents. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria 2017; 39: 21–27.
  • 19. Cheng ER, Rifas-Shiman SL, Perkins ME, Rich-Edwards JW, Gillman MW, Wright R,et al. The Influence of antenatal partner support on pregnancy outcomes. Journal of Women’s Health.2016; 25(7); 672-679.
  • 20. Çıldır G, Karakoç A, Karaca S. Babaların Bebek Bakımına Katılımının Değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Hakemli Akademik Spor Sağlık ve Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi 2014;10(4);1-15.
  • 21. Tadesse M, Boltena AT, Asamoah B O. Husbands’ partcipaton in birth preparedness and complicaton readiness and associated factors in Wolaita Sodo town, Southern Ethiopia.Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med.2018;11,10(1): e1-e8.
  • 22. Güngör İ. Doğum öncesi hazırlık eğitimlerinde babaların yeri ve gereksinimleri. Turkiye Klinikleri J Obstet Womens Health Dis Nurs-Special Topics.2015; 1(1): 44-51.
  • 23. Kanığ M, Eroğlu K. Gebelerde algılanan sosyal destek düzeyi ve etkileyen faktörler. Hemşirelikte Eğitim ve Araştırma Dergisi 2019;16(2):125-133
  • 24. Özdemir F, Bodur S, Nazik E, Nazik H, Kanbur A.Hiperemezis Gravidarum tanısı alan gebelerin sosyal destek düzeyinin belirlenmesi. TAF Prev Med Bull. 2010;9(5):463-470.
  • 25. Forbes F, Wynter K, Wade C, Zeleke BM, Fisher J. Male partner attendance at antenatal care and adherence to antenatal care guidelines: secondary analysis of 2011 Ethiopian demographic and health survey data. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.2018; 18(145); 2-11.
There are 24 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Health Care Administration
Journal Section Orijinal Articles
Authors

Zeynep Yüksekal This is me 0000-0001-5349-2369

Mine Yurdakul

Publication Date December 20, 2021
Submission Date July 15, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 15 Issue: 4

Cite

Vancouver Yüksekal Z, Yurdakul M. Gebelerin Eş Desteği Algıları ve İlişkili Faktörler. TJFMPC. 2021;15(4):800-8.

English or Turkish manuscripts from authors with new knowledge to contribute to understanding and improving health and primary care are welcome.