Riskli Olan ve Olmayan Gebelerin İnternet Yoluyla Karar Alma Durumlarının Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, riskli olan ve olmayan gebelerin internet yoluyla karar alma durumlarını değerlendirmek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Yöntem: Araştırma analitik, vaka kontrol tiptedir. Çalışmanın örneklemini, Kadın Doğum Polikliniğine başvuran 107 riskli, 107 risksiz olmak üzere toplamda 214 gebe kadın oluşturmuştur. Araştırmada veriler yüz yüze görüşme tekniği ile Tanıtıcı Bilgi Formu, Gebelikte İnternet Yoluyla Karar Alma Ölçeği (GİYKAÖ) kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Verilerin değerlendirilmesinde tanımlayıcı istatistiklerin yanı sıra Ki kare testi, Independent Samples t Testi ve Mann Whitney U testi ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Çalışmaya katılan gebelerin yaş ortalaması 28.08 ± 6.37’dir. Çalışmaya katılan gebelerin %56.1’inin gebelikteki bilgi ihtiyacını internetten karşıladığı, %46.7’sinin gebelikle ilgili bilgi almak için internet sitelerine bakarken özellikle doktor sitelerine baktığı ve %49.1’inin gebelikle ilgili en fazla bebeğin gelişimi ve sağlığı konusu için interneti kullandığı belirlenmiştir. Riskli gebelerin risksiz gruptaki gebelere göre GİYKAÖ toplam puan ortalaması anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksektir (p=0.002). Sonuç: Riskli gebelerin internet yoluyla karar alma durumu risksiz olan gebelere göre daha yüksektir. Bu doğrultuda ebe ve hemşirelerin; gebelere internette yer alan bilgilerin her zaman güvenli olmadığı açıklanmalıdır. Gebelik sürecine ilişkin karar alırken, mutlaka sağlık personellerine danışılması önem arz etmektedir.

Keywords

• Riskli gebelik
• internet
• karar alma
• ebelik bakımı

Determination of the Internet Decision-Making Status of Risky and Non-Risky Pregnant Women

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the Internet decision-making status of risky and non-risky pregnant women. Method: The research employed an analytical and case-control design. The sample of the study consisted of 214 pregnant women, including 107 in the risky group and 107 in the non-risky group, who applied to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Outpatient Clinic. In the study, the data were collected using The Introductory Information Form and The Internet Decision-Making Scale in Pregnancy (IDMSP) through face-to-face interviews. In the evaluation of the data, Chi-square test, Independent Samples t-Test and Mann Whitney U test were used in addition to descriptive statistics. Results: The mean age of the pregnant women participating in the study was 28.08 ± 6.37 years. It was determined that 56.1% of the pregnant women who participated in the study met their need for information on the Internet, 46.7% checked the blog pages of the doctors while searching on the Internet to receive information about pregnancy, and 49.1% mostly used the Internet for searching about the prenatal development and health of the baby. The overall mean score of the pregnant women at risk obtained from the IDMSP was significantly higher compared to those in the non-risky group (p=0.002). Conclusion: The Internet decision-making status of risky pregnant women has been found to be higher compared to non-risky pregnant women. Accordingly, midwives and nurses should inform pregnant women that information on the Internet is not always safe, and it is important to consult healthcare professionals when making a decision regarding pregnancy.

Keywords

• Risky pregnancy
• internet
• decision making
• midwifery care

References

1. Alianmoghaddam, N., Phibbs, S., & Benn, C. (2019). “I did a lot of Googling”: A qualitative study of exclusive breastfeeding support through social media. Women and Birth, 32(2), 147-156.[CrossRef]
2. Baker, B., & Yang, I. (2018). Social media as social support in pregnancy and the postpartum. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 17, 31-34.[CrossRef]
3. Batman, D. (2018). Pregnancy research of pregnant women and sources of information; a qualitative study. KOU Journal of Health Sciences, 4(3), 63-69. [CrossRef]
4. Bayrak, E., & Kanbur, A. (2022). Investigation of the Relationship Between Internet Decision-Making and Health Practices in Pregnant Women. Journal of İnönü University Vocational School of Health Services, 10(1), 255-269. [CrossRef]
5. Bjelke, M., Martinsson, A. K., Lendahls, L., & Oscarsson, M. (2016). Using the Internet as a source of information during pregnancy—A descriptive cross-sectional study in Sweden. Midwifery, 40, 187-191. [CrossRef]
6. Cirban, E., & Özsoy, S. (2020). The Role of the Internet in Meeting Information Needs in Pregnancy. Journal of Continuing Medical Education, 29(5), 351-60. [CrossRef]
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [CrossRef]
8. Conrad, M. (2022). Health information-seeking internet behaviours among pregnant women: a narrative literature review. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 1-15. [CrossRef]

9. Datareportal (2023). Digital 2023, Global digital overwiev. Erişim tarihi: 21.02.2023 https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-global-overview-report
10. Değirmenciler, B., Sercekus, P., & Özkan, S. (2022). How Internet and Social Media Use Affect Pregnant Women. Ordu University Journal of Nursing Studies, 5 (3): 453-8. [CrossRef]
11. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. [CrossRef]
12. Ferraz, M., Almeida, A. M., Matias, A., & Farine, D. (2016). The influence of the web on health related decision-making processes: a survey with Portuguese women during pregnancy. Procedia Computer Science, 100, 347-354.[CrossRef]
13. Hinton, L., Dumelow, C., Rowe, R., & Hollowell, J. (2018). Birthplace choices: what are the information needs of women when choosing where to give birth in England? A qualitative study using online and face to face focus groups. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 18(1), 1-15. [CrossRef]
14. Huberty, J., Dinkel, D., Beets, M. W., & Coleman, J. (2013). Describing the use of the internet for health, physical activity, and nutrition information in pregnant women. Maternal and child health journal, 17, 1363-72. [CrossRef]
15. Koyun, A., & G. Erbektaş. 2018. Development of decision making scale via internet on pregnancy. International Refereed Journal of Gynaecological Diseases and Maternal Child Health 12 (12):25–38. [CrossRef
16. Lee, S. Y., & Lee, S. (2021). Quality of Online Information Regarding High-Risk Pregnancies. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 39(12), 974-983. [CrossRef]
17. Lobo, S., Lucas, C. J., Herbert, J. S., Townsend, M. L., Smith, M., Kunkler, E., & Charlton, K. E. (2020). Nutrition information in pregnancy: Where do women seek advice and has this changed over time?. Nutrition & Dietetics, 77(3), 382-391. [CrossRef]
18. Musaei, S. (2022). The Effect of Pregnancy on the Skin. Eurasian Journal of Chemical, Medicinal and Petroleum Research, 2(1), 17-23. [CrossRef]
19. Narasimhulu, D. M., Karakash, S., Weedon, J., & Minkoff, H. (2016). Patterns of internet use by pregnant women, and reliability of pregnancy-related searches. Maternal and child health journal, 20, 2502-2509. [CrossRef]
20. Hadımlı, A., Demirelöz Akyüz, M., & Tuna Oran, N. (2018). Gebelerin interneti kullanma sıklıkları ve nedenleri. Life Sciences (NWSALS), 13(3), 32-43. [CrossRef]
21. Polat, F., & Karasu, F. (2022). The Relationship of Internet Use in Pregnant Women with Their Thoughts on Self and Baby's Health. Journal of Addiction, 23(4), 1-1. [CrossRef]
22. Scaioli, G., Bert, F., Galis, V., Brusaferro, S., De Vito, E., La Torre, G., ... & Siliquini, R. (2015). Pregnancy and internet: sociodemographic and geographic differences in e-health practice. Results from an Italian multicenter study. Public health, 129(9), 1258-1266. [CrossRef]
23. Serçekuş, P., & Okumuş, H. (2009). Fears associated with childbirth among nulliparous women in Turkey. Midwifery, 25(2), 155-162. [CrossRef]
24. Serçekuş, P., Değirmenciler, B., & Özkan, S. (2021). Internet use by pregnant women seeking childbirth information. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction, 50(8), 102144. [CrossRef]
25. Slomian, J., Emonts, P., Vigneron, L., Acconcia, A., Glowacz, F., Reginster, J. Y., ... & Bruyère, O. (2017). Identifying maternal needs following childbirth: A qualitative study among mothers, fathers and professionals. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 17(1), 1-13. [CrossRef]
26. Taştekin Ouyaba, A., & İnfal Kesim, S. (2021). The effect of the Internet on decision-making during pregnancy: a systematic review. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 24(2), 205-215. [CrossRef]
27. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2022). Digitalization of Governments during the Pandemic: The Case of Turkey. Access date: February 15, 2023. [CrossRef]
28. Wallwiener, S., Müller, M., Doster, A., Laserer, W., Reck, C., Pauluschke-Fröhlich, J., ... & Wallwiener, M. (2016). Pregnancy eHealth and mHealth: user proportions and characteristics of pregnant women using Web-based information sources—a cross-sectional study. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 294, 937-944. [CrossRef]
29. Zhu, C., Zeng, R., Zhang, W., Evans, R., & He, R. (2019). Pregnancy-related information seeking and sharing in the social media era among expectant mothers: qualitative study. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(12), e13694.[CrossRef]