Analysis of Risk Factors and Risky Pregnancies Among Pregnant Women Who Admitted to Hospital for Prenatal Care

Year 2023, , 552 - 562, 29.10.2023

Hasan Ulubaşoğlu , Saime Şahinöz , Turgut Şahinöz , Pınar Ulubaşoğlu

https://doi.org/10.19127/mbsjohs.1242118

Abstract

Objective: Every woman wants to have a healthy pregnancy and have a healthy baby, but it brings important risks. Risky pregnancies are with many different dimensions that negatively affect maternal and infant health. The aim of this study is to determine the frequency of risk factors leading to risky pregnancies which are important for public health, to reveal the reasons and to offer solutions.
Methods: This is a cross – sectional study of 409 married women who applied to the hospital for prenatal care. A questionnaire prepared by the researchers was used for data collection by face-to-face interview technique. Percentage, mean, and chi-square test were used to evaluate the data.
Results: Although pregnancy is a physiological process, 67.7% of the pregnant women had at least one risk factor and 27.6% had more than one risk factor. Risk factors such as having caesarean section, having four or more pregnancies, being 35 and over age, unwanted pregnancy status and having less than two years between the last two pregnancies were found to be the most common risk factors seen in pregnant women.
Conclusion: Because risky pregnancies are an important public health problem and most of them are preventable; preconceptional care should be expanded to control the mother and baby before threatening their health.

Keywords

Risk factors, pregnancy, risky pregnancy, Turkey, Risk faktörleri, gebelik, riskli gebelik, Türkiye

Hastaneye Prenatal Bakım için Başvuran Gebelerde Risk Faktörlerinin ve Riskli Gebeliklerin Analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı halk sağlığı açısından önemli bir sorun oluşturan riskli gebeliklere neden olan risk faktörlerinin sıklığını belirlemek, nedenlerini ortaya koymak ve çözüm önerileri sunmaktır.
Yöntemler: Bu araştırma, doğum öncesi bakım için hastaneye başvuran 409 evli kadın üzerinde yapılmış olan kesitsel bir çalışmadır. Veri toplamak için araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan anket formu yüz yüze görüşme tekniği ile uygulanmıştır. Verileri değerlendirmek için yüzdelik, ortalama ve Ki-kare testi kullanılmıştır.
Bulgular: Gebelik fizyolojik bir süreç olmasına rağmen gebelerin %67,7'ı en az bir risk faktörüne, %27,60'ı birden fazla risk faktörüne sahipti. Sezaryenla doğum, dört ve üzeri gebelik sayısı, 35 yaş ve üzeri yaşta olmak, istenmeyen gebelik durumu ve son iki gebelik arasındaki sürenin iki yıldan kısa olması gibi risk faktörlerinin gebelerde en sık görülen risk faktörleri olduğu saptanmıştır.
Sonuç: Riskli gebelikler önemli bir halk sağlığı sorunu olduğundan ve çoğu önlenebilir nitelikte olduğundan, gebelik öncesi bakım (prekonsepsiyonel bakım) anne ve bebeğin sağlığını tehdit etmeden önce kontrol altına alınacak şekilde genişletilmelidir.

Keywords

Risk factors, pregnancy, risky pregnancy, Turkey, Risk faktörleri, gebelik, riskli gebelik, Türkiye

References

• Price S, Lake M, Breen G, Carson G, Quinn C, & O’Connor T. The spiritual experience of high-risk pregnancy. JOGNN. 2007;36(1): 63-70.
• World Health Organization, World Health Organization. Reproductive Health, & World Health Organization. Department of Reproductive Health. (2003). Pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum, and newborn care: a guide for essential practice. World Health Organization. Geneva; 2003. p.35-48.
• World Health Organization. Preconception care: Maximizing the gains for maternal and child health. Geneva; 2013. p.26-37.
• Hacettepe University Population Studies Institute. 2018 Türkiye Population and Health Survey. Hacettepe University Population Studies Institute, T.R. Presidency Strategy and Budget Directorate and TÜBİTAK, Ankara; 2019. pp. 23-71.
• Aydemir H, Uyar Hazar H. Aydemir H, Uyar Hazar H. Low risk, risk, and high risk pregnancies and the role of midwives. Gümüşhane University Journal of Health Sciences, 2014; 3(2): 815-833.
• T.R. Ministry of Health, Turkish Public Health Institution, Department of Women's and Reproductive Health. Prenatal Care Management Guide, Publication No: 924. Ankara; 2014. pp.13-42.
• Doğan Pekince G, Ertem G. Prenatal period. In: Sevil Ü, Ertem G. editors. Perinatology. 1st ed. Ankara: Nobel Medical Bookstore; 2016. p. 127-68.
• Baysoy NG, Özkan S. Preconception Care: A Public Health Perspective. Gazi Medical Journal. 2012; 23(3):77-90. doi:10.5152/ gmj.2012.25
• Aksoy A, & Yılmaz D.V. A New Service Model To Increase Community Health: Preconceptional Care And The Nurse's Role. Journal of Education and Research in Nursing (JERN). 2019; 16(1): 60-67.
• 10. Tekin Ö.F, Tellioğlu M, Arıkan İ, & Akça M.E. Descriptive characteristics of risky pregnant women followed in a community health center. In 3. International 21. National Public Health Congress, September 2019.
• Kıssal A, & Kartal B. The Evaluation of Prenatal Care Content of Women Who Gave Birth in A University Hospital. Journal of Health Sciences of Kocaeli University. 2019; 5(1): 35-41.
• T.R. Ministry of Health General Directorate of Health Information Systems. Health Statistics Yearbook 2017. Ankara; Kuban Printing and Publishing. 2018. pp. 15-47.
• Kıyak H, Bolluk G, Canaz E, Yüksel S, Gedikbaşı A. The evaluation of cesarean section rates in accordance with Robson Ten-Group Classification System and the data of perinatology (tertiary center). Perinatal Journal. 2019;27(2):89–100.
• World Health Organization. Global status report on alcohol and health 2018. Geneva; 2019. p.28-47.
• Souza J.P, Betran A.P, Dumont A, De Mucio B, Gibbs Pickens C.M, Deneux‐Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C-Model): a multicountry cross sectional study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2016; 123(3):427-36.
• Karabulutlu Ö. Identifying The Women`s Choice of Delivery Methods of and The Factors That Affect Them. Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing. 2012; 20(3): 210-218.
• Duman Z. The opinion of health workers regarding vaginal labor and cesarean section. Afyon Kocatepe University Institute of Health Sciences, Master's thesis. Afyonkarahisar, Türkiye, 2006.
• Ghaffari S, Dehghanpisheh L, Tavakkoli F, & Mahmoudi H. The effect of spinal and general anesthesia on quality of life in women with cesarean delivery. Cureus. 2018;10(12): e3715
• McCrory C, McNally S. The effect of pregnancy intention on maternal prenatal behaviours and parent and child health: results of an Irish cohort study. Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. 2013; 27:208–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12027.
• Messer L.C, Dole N, Kaufman J.S, & Savitz D.A. Pregnancy intendedness, maternal psychosocial factors and preterm birth. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2005; 9:403-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-005-0021-7.
• Stanilio DM, DeFranco E, Paré E, Odibo A. O, Peipert J.F, Allsworth J.E, et al. Short interpregnancy interval: Risk of uterine rupture and complications of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. ObstetGynecol. 2007;110(5):1075-82. doi: 10.1097/01.aog.0000286759.49895.46
• Conde-Agudelo A, Belizan JM. Maternal morbidity and mortality associated with interpregnancy interval: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2000;321(7271):1255-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7271.1255
• Fuentas-Afflick E, Hessol NA. Interpregnancy interval and risk of premature infants. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2000;95(3):383-90.
• Karaoğlu L, Çetin F, Ilgar M, Tekiner S, Güneş G, Eğri M, et al. Fertility Characteristics and Contraceptive Use of the Married Women Working at Turgut Özal Medical Center. Journal of Turgut Ozal Medical Center; 12 (2):93–97.
• Ahsan J, Ayub R, Gul R, Khan U.A, & Zafar U. Assessment of risk factors for high-risk pregnancy. J Med Sci. 2017; 25: (1) 41-44.
• Hillemeier ML, Weisman CS, Chase G.A, Dyer A.M, & Shaffer M.L. Women’s preconceptional health and use of health services: Implications for preconception care. HSR: Health Services Research. 2008;43(1):54-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00741. x.
• Aynıoğlu Ö. Evaluation of Demographic Variables of Mothers Giving Birth Over 35 Years of Age. Kocatepe Medical Journal. 2014;15(2):152-5.
• Şekeroğlu M, Baksu A, Ince Z, Gültekin H, Göker N, Özsoy S. Adolescent and old age pregnants obstetric results. The Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital. 2009;43(1):1-7.
• Turan T, Ceylan S.S, & Teyikçi S. Influencing Factors and Situation of The Mothers To Take Regular Prenatal Care. Fırat Sağlık Hizmetleri Dergisi (Fırat Health Services Journal). 2008; 3(9): 157-172.
• Oskay Ü. Risky Situations Where Pregnancy Complications Occur and Nursing Approach. Kızılkaya NB, editor. Women's Health and Diseases. Nobel Medical Bookstore, Istanbul, 2015; 447-472.
• Shamsi U, Saleem S, & Nishter N. Epidemiology, and risk factors of preeclampsia; an overview of observational studies. Al Ameen J Med Sci. 2013; 6(4):292-300.
• Turner AJ. Diagnosis and management of preeclampsia: An update. Int J Womens Health. 2010; 2:327-337.
• Park M, Brewster U. Management of preeclampsia. Hospital Physician. 2007; 11:25-32.
• Çulha G, Ocaktan M.E, & Çöl M. Hypertension Study in Pregnant Women Demanding Services of Ankara University School of Medicine Obstetrics and Gynecology Department Outpatient Clinic. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences 2010; 30(2):639-649.
• Günalp S., Tuncer S. Gynecology and Obstetrics, Diagnosis and Treatment. Ankara: Pelikan Publications; 2004. p. 29-56.
• Köse S, Tosun G, Basok B.I., & Altunyurt S. A look at the obstetric outcomes in smoking pregnants through the first trimester screening window. Kocaeli Medical Journal. 2019; 8(1), 51-59.
• Barut A, Gültekin İ.B, Yılmaz E.A, Sabancı M, Karslı F, Kara O.F, et al. Neurodevelopmental problems of late preterm fetuses and the factors affecting neurological morbidity. Perinatal Journal. 2015; 23(3): 141-147.