Her İki Doğum Şeklini Deneyimleyen Kadınların Doğum Eylemi ve Postpartum Döneme Yönelik Duygu ve Düşüncelerinin Fiziksel ve Psikososyal Açıdan İncelenmesi: Kalitatif Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı her iki doğum şeklini deneyimleyen kadınların doğum eylemi ve postpartum döneme yönelik duygu ve düşüncelerinin fiziksel ve psikososyal açıdan incelenmesidir. Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada kalitatif yöntemlerden fenomenolojik yöntem kullanıldı. Çalışmanın örneklemini en az birer defa normal ve sezaryen doğum yaparak her iki doğum şeklini deneyimleyen 16 kadın oluşturdu. Verilerin toplanmasında kişisel bilgi formu ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanıldı. Veriler, “derinlemesine görüşme” yöntemiyle toplandı ve “içerik analizi” ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Çalışmada katılımcıların yaş ortalaması 31,5 ± 2,3 yıl iken, %37,5’inin ilkokul mezunu, ve %50’sinin gelir getiren bir işte çalışmadığı belirlenmiştir. Verilerin içerik analizi sonucunda dört ana tema ve sekiz alt tema ortaya çıkmıştır. Her iki doğum şeklini deneyimleyen kadınların psikososyal açıdan ele alındığında, doğum eylemine yönelik ağrı, korku, endişe, kontrol kaybı gibi deneyimlerden sonra postpartum ilk dakikalarda fiziksel rahatlık, mutluluk ve emzirme gibi olumlu deneyimleri yaşadıkları saptandı. Sonuç: Çalışma sonuçları kadınların normal sonrası sezaryen doğuma göre daha olumlu annelik ve postpartum süreç deneyimlediklerini, bebekle ilk iletişim ve emzirme sürecini yönetebildiklerini göstermektedir ve bu durum normal doğum konusunda gebelerin desteklenmesinin ve cesaretlendirilmesinin önemini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Vaginal birth
• : Vaginal doğum
• sezaryen
• postpartum
• doğum deneyimi
• ebelik bakımı

Physically and Psychosocial Investigation of Women's Emotions and Thoughts Regarding Birth and Postpartum Period of Women Who Have Experienced Both Types of Birth: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study is to examine the feelings and thoughts of women who have experienced both types of birth from a physically and psychosocial perspective. Methods: In this study, the phenomenological method, which provides in-depth analysis from qualitative methods, was used. The sample of the study consisted of 16 women who had at least one normal and cesarean delivery and experienced both types of delivery. Personal information form and semi-structured interview form were used to collect data. The data were collected by using the "semi-structured interview form" with the "in-depth interview" method and evaluated with "content analysis". Results: According to the results of the study, the average age of the participants was 31.5 ± 2.3, while 37.5% of them were primary school graduates and 50% were not working in an income generating job. As a result of the content analysis of the data, four main themes ('Meaning of birth', 'Emotions at birth', 'Postpartum experiences', 'Encounter with the baby') and eight sub-themes emerged. Considering the psychosocial aspects of women who experienced both types of delivery, it was determined that they had positive experiences such as physical comfort, happiness and breastfeeding experiences in the first minutes postpartum after experiences such as pain, fear, anxiety and loss of control. Conclusion: The results of the study show that women experience more positive motherhood and postpartum period compared to normal post-cesarean section, and they can manage the first communication and breastfeeding process with the baby, and this reveals the importance of supporting and encouraging pregnant women in normal birth.

Keywords

• Vaginal birth
• sectio
• postpartum
• newborn
• birth experience
• midwifery care

References

1. Akca, A., Corbacioglu, E.A., Sefik Ozyurek, E., Aydin, A., Korkmaz, N., Gorgen, H., Akbayır, O. (2017). The influence of the systematic birth preparation program on childbirth satisfaction. Archives Gynecology Obstetrics, 295(5), 1127-1133. doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4345-5.
2. Akgün, M., Boz, İ. (2019). Women's decision-making processes and experiences of vaginal birth after caesarean birth: A phenomenological study. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 12, e12780. doi: 10.1111/ijn.12780.
3. Arslan, E. (2022). "Nitel Araştırmalarda Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik", Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 51(1), 395-407. DOI: 10.30794/pausbed.1116878
4. Boz, İ., Teskereci, G., Akman, G. (2016). How did you choose a mode of birth? Experiences of nulliparous women from Turkey. Women and Birth, 29(4), 359-367. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2016.01.005. Epub 2016 Feb 2.
5. Büyükbayrak, E.E., Kaymaz, O., Kars, B., Karşıdağ, A.Y.K., Bektas, E., Unal, O., Turan, C. (2010). Caesarean delivery or vaginal birth: preference of Turkish pregnant women and influencing factors. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 30(2), 155-158. doi: 10.3109/01443610903461436.
6. Callister, L.C. (2004). Making meaning: women’s birth narratives. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 33(4), 508–518.
7. Carquillat, P., Boulvain, M., Guittier, M.J. (2016). How does delivery method influence factors that contribute to women’s childbirth experiences? Midwifery, 43, 21-28. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2016.10.002. Epub 2016 Oct 8.
8. Çapık, A., Sakar, T., Yıldırım, N., Karabacak, K., Korkut, M. (2016). Determining the Satisfaction Levels of the Mothers According to Their Mode of Birth. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 19(2), 92-99.

9. Danso, K.A., Schwandt, H.M., Turpın, C.A., Seffah, J.D., Samba, A., Hındın, M.J. (2009). Preference of Ghanaian women for vaginal or caesarean delivery postpartum. Ghana Medical Journal, 43(1), 29-33.
10. Demı̇rgöz Bal, M., Derelı̇ Yılmaz, S., Kızılkaya Bejı̇, N. (2013). Kadınların Sezaryen Doğum Tercihleri. Care for Evidence-Based Applications During Pregnancy Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing, 21(2), 139-146.
11. Dencker, A., Nilsson, C., Begley, C., Jangsten, E., Mollberg, M., Patel, H., Wigert, H., Hessman, E., Sjöblom, H., Sparud-Lundin, C. (2019). Causes and outcomes in studies of fear of childbirth: A systematic review. Women and Birth, 32(2),99-111. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2018.07.004. Epub 2018 Aug 14.
12. Duran ET, Atan ŞÜ. (2011). Kadınların sezaryen/vajinal doğuma ilişkin bakış açılarının kalitatif analizi. Qualitative analysis of perspectives of woman about cessation section/vaginal delivery. Genel Tıp Dergisi, 21: 83-88.
13. Erdoğan S, Nahcivan N and Esin MN. (2014). Hemşirelikte araştırma: süreç, uygulama ve kritik. Ankara: Nobel Tıp Kitapevleri. p.133-164.
14. Fenwick, J., Midhons, L.S., Creedy, D.K., Bayes, S. (2010). Why do women request caesarean section in a normal, healthy first pregnancy? Midwifery, 26(4):394-400. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2008.10.011. Epub 2008 Dec 30.
15. Faisal, I., Matinnia, N., Hejar, A.R., Khodakarami, Z. (2014). Why do primigravidae request caesarean section in a normal pregnancy? A qualitative study in Iran. Midwifery, 30(2):227-233. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.08.011. Epub 2013 Aug 26.
16. Henderson, J., Redshaw, M. (2013). Women’s experience of induction of labor: a mixed methods study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 92(10), 1159-1167. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12211. Epub 2013 Jul 22
17. Henriksen, L., Grimsrud, E., Schei, B., Lukasse, M. (2017). Factors related to a negative birth experience - A mixed methods study. Midwifery, 51, 33-39. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.05.004. Epub 2017 May 8.
18. Hinic, K. (2016). Predictors of breastfeeding confidence in the early postpartum period. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 45(5), 649–660.
19. Garthus-Niegel, S., Soest, T., Vollrath, M., & Eberhard-Gran, M. (2013). The impact of subjective birth experiences on post-traumatic stress symptoms: A longitudinal study. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 16(1), 1–10.
20. Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28,235-60.
21. Giorgi A. Concerning the application of phenomenology to caring research. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences,14:11-15. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2000.tb00555.x
22. Karlstrom, A., Radestad, I., Eriksson, C., Rubertsson, C., Nystedt, A., & Hildingsson, I. (2010). Cesarean section without medical reason, 1997 to 2006: A Swedish register study. Birth, 37(1), 11-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00373.x.
23. Kasai, K.E., Nomura, R.M., Benute, G.R., de Lucia, M.C., Zugaib, M. (2010). Women's opinions about mode of birth in Brazil: a qualitative study in a public teaching hospital. Midwifery, 26(3):319-326. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2008.08.001. Epub 2008 Oct 7.
24. Kissler, K., Jones, J., McFarland, A.K., Luchsinger, J. (2019). A qualitative meta-synthesis of women's experiences of labor dystocia. Women Birth, 19:pii:S1871-5192(19)30154-4. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.08.001.
25. Larkin, P., Begley, C.M., & Devane, D., 2009. Women‘s experiences of labour and birth: An evolutionary concept analysis. Midwifery, 25(2), e49–59
26. Leininger, M. (1998). Qualitative research methods in nursing, Greyden Pres, USA. pp.33-38.
27. Lundgren, I., Begley, C., Gross, M.M., Bondas, T. (2012). 'Groping through the fog': a metasynthesis of women's experiences on VBAC (Vaginal birth after Caesarean section). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 21,12:85. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-85.
28. Nilsson, C., Hessman, E., Sjöblom, H., Dencker, A., Jangsten, E., Mollberg, M., Patel, H., Sparud-Lundin, C., Wigert, H., Begley, C. (2018). Definitions, measurements and prevalence of fear of childbirth: A systematic review. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 12;18(1),28. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1659-7.
29. Nystedt, A., & Hildingsson, I. (2018). Women’s and men’s negative experience of childbirth – A cross-sectional survey. Women and Birth, 31(2), 103-109. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2017.07.002. Epub 2017 Aug 5.
30. Nystedt, U., Högberg, B., Lundman B. (2008). Women’s experiences of becoming a mother after prolonged labour. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63(3), 250-258. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04636.x.
31. OECD. “Caesarean sections”, in health at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators. Paris: Author.
32. Pınar, G., Doğan, N., Algıer, L., Kaya, N., Çakmak, F. (2009). Factors that affecting mothers’ postnatal comfort. Dicle Tıp Dergisi/Dicle Medical Journal, 36 (3), 184-190.
33. Ravitch, S. M., Carl, N. M. (2019). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Sage Publications.
34. Serçekuş, P., Cetisli, N.E., İnci, F.H. (2015). Birth preferences by nulliparous women and their partners in Turkey. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 6(3):182-185. doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.2015.03.002.
35. Serçekuş, P., Okumuş, H. (2009). Fears associated with childbirth among nulliparous women in Turkey. Midwifery, 25(2):155-162. Epub 2007 Jun 27.
36. Smarandache, A., Kim, T.H.M, Bohr, Y., & Tamim, H. (2016). Predictors of a negative labour and birth experience based on a national survey of Canadian women. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 18:16(1)114. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0903-2.
37. Spaich, S., Welzel, G., Berlit, S., Temerinac, D.,Tuschy, B., Sütterlin, M., Kehl, S. (2013). Mode of delivery and its influence on women's satisfaction with childbirth. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 170(2), 401-406. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.07.040. Epub 2013 Aug 7.
38. Yıldırım A, & Şimşek H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8. Baskı). Seçkin Basımevi, Ankara. p.91-107.
39. Waldenström, U., Hildingsson, I., Ryding, E.L. (2006). Antenatal fear of childbirth and its association with subsequent caesarean section and experience of childbirth. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 113(6), 638-646.
40. Thelin, I.L., Lundgren, I., and Nilsson, C. (2019). To challenge oneself as a childbearing woman—the lived experience of vaginal birth after caesarean section in Sweden. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 14(1):1605784. doi: 10.1080/17482631.2019.1605784.
41. Tong A, Sainsbury P, and Craig J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19:349-537. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042