The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 13 Sayı: 4 Sayfa Aralığı: 805 - 814 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 İndeks Tarihi: 29-05-2022
The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research
Öz: Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the views of primiparous pregnant women about labor and the type of delivery they want to have. Material and Methods: The sample of this qualitative study included 26 primiparous pregnant women who did not have communication problems and volunteered to participate in the study, applied to the Obstetrics and Gynecology outpatient clinic of Cumhuriyet University Health Services Research and Training Hospital between 30.06.2016 and 30.09.2016, who were selected using the purposive sampling method. Percentages, mean values and chisquared test were used to analyze the quantitative data, and content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. Results: There was a statistically significant relationship between the delivery method that the pregnant women thought of having and the form of the occurrence of their current pregnancy (p<0.05). Of the pregnant women, 92.3% stated that they wanted to have a vaginal delivery, and 7.7% of them wanted to have a cesarean section delivery. In relation to the statements of the women who wanted to have vaginal delivery, the sub-categories of “a healthier birth process for mother and baby”, “fast recovery”, “living the moment of birth and the immediate start of the mother-baby relationship”, “easier and more comfortable birth process” and “some gynecological diseases of the woman get better-her body is renewed” emerged under the main category of seeing vaginal birth as a normal act. According to those who wanted to have a cesarean delivery, the main category of not being afraid of cesarean delivery included the sub-categories of “easy and painless delivery process” and “planned delivery”. Conclusion: It was determined that the majority of the pregnant women wanted to have a vaginal delivery, and all pregnant women defined vaginal delivery as the “best way of delivery” in terms of maternal and infant health.
Anahtar Kelime: Primipar Gebelerin Doğum Şekline Yönelik Görüşleri:Niteliksel Bir Araştırma
Öz: -
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- 1. Taşkın L. Doğum ve Kadın Sağlığı Hemşireliği. 9. Baskı. Ankara: Sistem Ofset Matbaacılık; 2009.
- 2. Okumuş H, Mete S, Yenal K, Tokat MA, Figen PS. Anne Babalar İçin Doğuma Hazırlık. 1. Baskı. İstanbul: Deomed Reklam ve Yayıncılık Ltd. ve Şti; 2009.
- 3. Aktaş S, Pasinlioğlu T. [The effect of empathy training given to midwives upon meeting mothers' expectations and level of perceiving labor and midwives during postpartum period]. The Journal of Gynecology-Obstetrics and Neonatology. 2017;14(4):33-45. [Link]
- 4. Güzel M. Zonguldak Kadın Doğum Hastanesine Başvuran Gebelerin Bilgi, Tutum ve Deneyimlerinin Doğum Şekli Tercihlerine Etkisi. [Master Thesis]. Zonguldak: Bülent Ecevit University; 2014. p.20-36. Erişim tarihi: 2020 Erişim linki: [Link]
- 5. Vatansever Z, Okumuş H. [The study of decision making about the delivery type of pregnant women]. Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Nursing Electronics Journal. 2013;6(2):81- 7. [Link]
- 6. Yaşar Ö, Şahin FK, Coşar E, Köken GN, Cevrioğlu AS. [Birth method choices of primipar women and the factors which have an effect on these choices]. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics. 2007;17(5): 414-20. [Link] REFERENCES 814 Nuriye ERBAŞ et al. Turkiye Klinikleri J Nurs Sci. 2021;13(4):805-14
- 7. Aktaş S, Pasinoğlu T. [The effect of empathic communication skills of midwives on labor and post labor period]. Journal of Anatolia Nursing and Health Sciences. 2016;19(3):38-45. [Link]
- 8. Boz İ, Teskereci G, Akman G. How did you choose a mode of birth? Experiences of nulliparous women from Turkey. Women Birth. 2016;29(4):359-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 9. Karlström A, Nystedt A, Hildingsson I. The meaning of a very positive birth experience: focus groups discussions with women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:251. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- 10. Akadlı Ergöçmen B, Çavlin A, Abbasoğlu Özgören A. Üreme Sağlığı. 2013 Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü; 2014. p.141-56.
- 11. Bektaş E. Hastanemiz gebe polikliniğine başvuran gebelerde normal doğum ve sezaryen tercihi ve nedenleri ile ilgili anket çalışması. [Master Thesis]. İstanbul: Ministry of Health Lütfi Kırdar Kartal Training and Research Hospital; 2008. Erişim tarihi: 2020.Erişim linki: [Link]
- 12. Murray H, Mckinney E. Foundations of maternal newborn and women's Health Nursing. 6th ed. USA: Elsevier; 2011.
- 13. Temizkan E, Mete S. [Determination of the factors affecting the birth style preferences of primiparas]. HEAD. 2020;17(2):112-9. [Link]
- 14. Yıldız Ş, Çaypınar SS, Cengiz H, Dağdeviren H, Kanawati A. Awareness and perceptions of Turkish women towards delivery methods. Journal of Computer Engineering and Informatics. 2014;5(2):173-8. [Crossref]
- 15. Kıyak ÇE, Kara M, Cihan GY. [Cesarean section rate and indications in our clinic to three years]. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine. 2010;27(2):50-3. [Link]
- 16. Danso K, Schwandt H, Turpin C, Seffah J, Samba A, Hindin M. Preference of ghanaian women for vaginal or caesarean delivery postpartum. Ghana Med J. 2009;43(1):29-33. [PubMed] [PMC]
- 17. Ergöl Ş, Kürtüncü M. [Factors affecting women's preferences for cesarean birth in a university hospital]. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Nursing. 2014;1(3):26-34. [Link]
- 18. Özkar F. Gaziantep Nizip Zerde Gümlü Ayşe Çapan Sağlık Ocağı bölgesinde yaşayan normal doğum ve sezeryan ile doğum yapan kadınların, erken postpartum dönemde bir sonraki gebelik ve doğum hakkındaki duygu ve düşünceleri. [Master Thesis]. Afyonkara hisar: Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi; 2011. Erişim tarihi: 2020. Erişim linki: [Link]
- 19. Taşpınar A, Özpınar S, Çoban A, Küçük M. The effects of prenatal care on cesarean section rates in a maternity and children's hospital. Cumhuriyet Medical Journal. 2014;36(2): 442-50. [Crossref]
- 20. Uzunçakmak C, Güldaş A, Aydın S, Var A, Özçam H. [Investigation of the cesarean sections in İstanbul Training and Research Hospital Obstetrics and Gynecology Department between 2005-2012]. İstanbul Medical Journal. 2013;14(2):112-6. [Link]
- 21. Yakut EY. Gebelerin doğum şekline ilişkin görüş ve tercihleri. [Master Thesis]. Aydın: Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi; 2015. Erişim linki: [Link]
- 22. Akyol A, Gönen YŞ, Tekirdağ Aİ. [The comparison of type and properties of delivery between health workers and non health workers]. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery. 2011;3(2):55-63. [Link]
- 23. Duman Z, Nadirgil G, Kırşahin F, Coşar E, Dağıstan TA, Aral İ. The opinion of health workers regarding vaginal labor and cesarean section. Perinatal Journal. 2007;15(5):7-11. [Link]
- 24. Faisal-Cury A, Menezes PR. Fatores associados à preferência por cesareana [Factors associated with preference for cesarean delivery]. Rev Saude Publica. 2006;40(2):226- 32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 25. Saoji A, Nayse J, Kasturwar N, Relwani N. Women's knowledge, perceptions, and potential demand towards caesarean section. National Journal of Community Medicine. 2011;2(2):244-8. [Link]
- 26. Sıkar D, Yaşar L, Battaloğlu İB, Yaşar N. [Demographic features and indications of pregnant women with previous cesarean section]. Turkish Journal of Family Practice. 2013; 17(1):3-7. [Crossref]
- 27. Canbal M, Ak M, Yılmaz A, Palancı Y. The standard of knowledge for cesarean section in women who applied to family medicine: Two centered cross-sectional study. Dicle Medical Journal. 2014;41(2):319-25. [Crossref]
- 28. Hildingsson I, Rådestad I, Rubertsson C, Waldenström U. Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section. BJOG. 2002; 109(6):618-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 29. Konakçı SK, Kılıç B. [Prevalence and affecting factors for cesarean section deliveries in izmir]. T. Klin Jinekol Obst. 2004;14(2):8-95. [Link]
- 30. Mutlu C, Yorbık Ö, Tanju İA, Çelikel F, Sezer RG. [Association of prenatal, natal, and postnatal factors with maternal attachment in İstanbul]. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry. 2015; 16(5):442-50. [Crossref]
- 31. Serçekuş P, Egelioglu Cetisli N, İnci FH. Birth preferences by nulliparous women and their partners in Turkey. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2015; 6(3):182-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 32. Aktaş S, Erkek ZY. [The examination of the reasons why mothers preference to vaginal birth: an example of qualitative study]. GÜS BD. 2018;7(1):111-24. [Link]
- 33. Adageba R, Danso K, Adusu-Donkor A, Ankobea-Kokroe F. Awareness and perceptions of and attitudes towards caesarean delivery among antenatal. Ghana Med J. 2008; 42(4):137-40. [PubMed] [PMC]
- 34. Li WY, Liabsuetrakul T, Stray-Pedersen B. Change of childbirth preference after delivery among nulliparous Chinese women and their partners. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(1): 184-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 35. Yüksel D, Yüce T, Kalafat E, Aker SŞ, Koç A. The views of nulliparous pregnant women on the types of delivery. Journal of Turkish Society of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2016;13(3): 127-31. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
APA | erbaş n, KOCATAŞ S (2021). The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research. , 805 - 814. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
Chicago | erbaş nuriye,KOCATAŞ Semra The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research. (2021): 805 - 814. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
MLA | erbaş nuriye,KOCATAŞ Semra The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research. , 2021, ss.805 - 814. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
AMA | erbaş n,KOCATAŞ S The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research. . 2021; 805 - 814. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
Vancouver | erbaş n,KOCATAŞ S The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research. . 2021; 805 - 814. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
IEEE | erbaş n,KOCATAŞ S "The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research." , ss.805 - 814, 2021. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
ISNAD | erbaş, nuriye - KOCATAŞ, Semra. "The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research". (2021), 805-814. https://doi.org/10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
APA | erbaş n, KOCATAŞ S (2021). The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research. Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(4), 805 - 814. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
Chicago | erbaş nuriye,KOCATAŞ Semra The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research. Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi 13, no.4 (2021): 805 - 814. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
MLA | erbaş nuriye,KOCATAŞ Semra The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research. Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi, vol.13, no.4, 2021, ss.805 - 814. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
AMA | erbaş n,KOCATAŞ S The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research. Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2021; 13(4): 805 - 814. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
Vancouver | erbaş n,KOCATAŞ S The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research. Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2021; 13(4): 805 - 814. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
IEEE | erbaş n,KOCATAŞ S "The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research." Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi, 13, ss.805 - 814, 2021. 10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |
ISNAD | erbaş, nuriye - KOCATAŞ, Semra. "The Opinions of Primiparous Pregnant Women on Delivery Methods: A Qualitative Research". Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi 13/4 (2021), 805-814. https://doi.org/10.5336/nurses.2020-80307 |