LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,149
تعداد مقالات10,518
تعداد مشاهده مقاله45,415,499
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله11,291,293
Sabetghadam, Shadi, Keramat, Afsaneh, Goli, Shahrbanoo, Malary, Mina, Rezaei Chamani, Sedighe. (1400). Assessment of Medicalization of Pregnancy and Childbirth in Low-risk Pregnancies: A Cross-sectional Study. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10(1), 64-73. doi: 10.30476/ijcbnm.2021.90292.1686
Shadi Sabetghadam; Afsaneh Keramat; Shahrbanoo Goli; Mina Malary; Sedighe Rezaei Chamani. "Assessment of Medicalization of Pregnancy and Childbirth in Low-risk Pregnancies: A Cross-sectional Study". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10, 1, 1400, 64-73. doi: 10.30476/ijcbnm.2021.90292.1686
Sabetghadam, Shadi, Keramat, Afsaneh, Goli, Shahrbanoo, Malary, Mina, Rezaei Chamani, Sedighe. (1400). 'Assessment of Medicalization of Pregnancy and Childbirth in Low-risk Pregnancies: A Cross-sectional Study', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10(1), pp. 64-73. doi: 10.30476/ijcbnm.2021.90292.1686
Sabetghadam, Shadi, Keramat, Afsaneh, Goli, Shahrbanoo, Malary, Mina, Rezaei Chamani, Sedighe. Assessment of Medicalization of Pregnancy and Childbirth in Low-risk Pregnancies: A Cross-sectional Study. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1400; 10(1): 64-73. doi: 10.30476/ijcbnm.2021.90292.1686

Assessment of Medicalization of Pregnancy and Childbirth in Low-risk Pregnancies: A Cross-sectional Study

International Journal of Community Based Nursing & Midwifery
مقاله 6، دوره 10، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 37، فروردین 2022، صفحه 64-73    اصل مقاله (372.8 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/ijcbnm.2021.90292.1686
نویسندگان
Shadi Sabetghadam1؛ Afsaneh Keramat* 2؛ Shahrbanoo Goli3؛ Mina Malary1؛ Sedighe Rezaei Chamani4
1Student Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran;
2Department of Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran;
3Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran;
4Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
چکیده
Background: Medicalization may lead to over-testing during pregnancy and increased cesarean section (CS). This study investigated the medicalization of low-risk pregnancies and childbirths in Rasht, Iran.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 337 postpartum women completed a demographic questionnaire and the Medicalized Pregnancy and Childbirth checklist. In this study, medicalization indicators were the source of providing prenatal care, prenatal screening for aneuploidy, number of received care, hospitalization before the onset of labor, intrapartum drug use, and CS. Demographic data were reported using descriptive statistics. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact and Man-Whitney tests were used for comparison purposes. Logistic regression was run to determine the medicalization indicators associated with the mode of childbirth.
Results: Of the participants, 82.2% received prenatal care from obstetricians, 85.8% had undergone prenatal screening tests. There was a significant difference between the median number of ultrasound examinations (P=0.006), prenatal screening for aneuploidy (P=0.002), and multivitamin/mineral supplements use (p <0.001), according to the source of providing prenatal care. Of the participants, 67.1% had CS. Women who received prenatal care from obstetricians had about 2.3 times more odds of CS (OR=2.23, P=0.019). Furthermore, with the increased number of ultrasounds, the odds of CS augmented by 25% (OR=1.25, P=0.013). Finally, 26.4% of the participants were hospitalized before the onset of labor; the intervention increased the odds of CS more than twice (OR=2.08, P=0.026).
Conclusion: The study showed a picture of medicalization in low-risk pregnancies.Of the medicalization indicators, the source of providing prenatal care, time of admission, and use of ultrasounds were associated with CS. Midwife-led care could diminish medicalization.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Cesarean section؛ Childbirth؛ Medicalization؛ Midwife-led care؛ Pregnancy
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. Bird CE, Conrad P, Fremont AM, Timmermans S. Handbook of Medical Sociology. 6th ed. US: Vanderbilt University Press; 2010.
  2. Ranjbar F, Gharacheh M, Vedadhir A. Overmedicalization of pregnancy and childbirth. International Journal of Women’s Health and Reproduction Sciences. 2019;7:419-20.
  3. Sedigh Mobarakabadi S, Najmabadi KM, Tabatabaie MG, Esmaily H. Predictors of mode of childbirth based on medicalized maternal care: A cross-sectional study. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal. 2017;19:e25073.
  4. Oladapo OT, Tuncalp O, Bonet M, et al. WHO model of intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience: transforming care of women and babies for improved health and wellbeing. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;125:918-22.
  5. Mena-Tudela D, Iglesias-Casás S, González-Chordá VM, et al. Obstetric Violence in Spain (Part II): Interventionism and Medicalization during Birth. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18:199.
  6. Sarngadharan RC, Vandana KR, Nandu KT. Rising Trend of Caesarean Section : Review on the Determinants of Cesarean Section Deliveries. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine. 2020;7:5904-9.
  7. . World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for induction of labour: Evidence base. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.
  8. Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH, et al. Midwifery and quality care: Findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. The Lancet. 2014;384:1129-45.
  9. Liu Y, Li T, Guo N, et al. Women’s experience and satisfaction with midwife-led maternity care: a cross-sectional survey in China. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2021;21:151.
  10. Huang K, Tao F, Raven J, et al. Utilization of antenatal ultrasound scan and implications for caesarean section: a cross-sectional study in rural Eastern China. BMC Health Services Research. 2012;12:93.
  11. Gu C, Wang X, Zhang Z, et al. Pregnant women’s clinical characteristics, intrapartum interventions, and duration of labour in urban China: A multi-center cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2020;20:386.
  12. Sedigh Mobarakabadi S, Najmabadi KM, Tabatabaie MG. Ambivalence towards childbirth in a medicalized context: A qualitative inquiry among Iranian mothers. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal. 2015;17:e24262.
  13. Gaudernack LC, Frøslie KF, Michelsen TM, et al. De-medicalization of birth by reducing the use of oxytocin for augmentation among first-time mothers - A prospective intervention study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2018;18:76.
  14. Ebrahimi S, Niknami M, Rafat F, Kazemnezhad Leili E. A Comparative Study on Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Pregnant Women with Different Age. Journal of Holistic Nursing and Midwifery. 2021;31:9-16.
  15. Azami-Aghdash S, Ghojazadeh M, Dehdilani N, et al. Prevalence and causes of cesarean section in Iran: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Iranian Journal of Public Health. 2014;43:545-55.
  16. MacKenzie Bryers H, van Teijlingen E. Risk, theory, social and medical models: A critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care. Midwifery. 2010;26:488-96.
  17. Wiegerinck MMJ, Eskes M, Post JAM, et al. Intrapartum and neonatal mortality in low‐risk term women in midwife‐led care and obstetrician‐led care at the onset of labor: A national matched cohort study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2020;99:546-54.
  18. Dencker A, Smith V, McCann C, Begley C. Midwife-led maternity care in Ireland - a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2017;17:101.
  19. Damiano EA, Auty SG, Von Mertens J, Gerjevic KA. Singleton, Term, Vertex Cesarean Delivery on a Midwife Service Compared With an Obstetrician Service. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020;135:1353-61.
  20. Janati A, Amini A, Adham D, Naseriasl M. Referral system in Iran’s health sector and world’s leading countries. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2017;10:1597-602.
  21. Najmabadi KM, Tabatabaie MG, Vedadhir AA, Sedigh Mobarakabadi S. The marginalisation of midwifery in medicalised pregnancy and childbirth: A qualitative study. British Journal of Midwifery. 2020;28:768-76.
  22. Rautiainen S, Manson JE, Lichtenstein AH, Sesso HD. Dietary supplements and disease prevention-a global overview. Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 2016;12:407-20.
  23. Kmietowicz Z. Multivitamin and mineral supplements in pregnancy are unnecessary expense, review finds. BMJ. 2016;354: i3821.
  24. Brown B, Wright C. Safety and efficacy of supplements in pregnancy. Nutrition Reviews. 2020;78:813-26.
  25. Wahlberg A, Gammeltof TM. Selective Reproduction in the 21st Century. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham; 2018.
  26. Birko S, Lemoine ME, Nguyen MT, Ravitsky V. Moving Towards Routine Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Challenges Related to Women’s Autonomy. OBM Genetics. 2018;2:018.
  27. Gabriel JL, Diskin L. Prenatal testing in low-risk populations: A us perspective. In: Hostiuc S, editor. Clinical Ethics at the Crossroads of Genetic and Reproductive Technologies. Netherlands: Elsevier Inc; 2018.
  28. Drukker L, Droste R, Chatelain P, et al. Safety Indices of Ultrasound: Adherence to Recommendations and Awareness during Routine Obstetric Ultrasound Scanning. Ultraschall in der Medizin. 2020;41:138-45.
  29. Bricker L, Medley N, Pratt JJ. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks’ gestation). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015;2015:CD001451.
  30. Balcik Colak M, Ozturk Can H. Effects of the time of pregnant women’s admission to the labor ward on the labor process and interventions. Health Care for Women International. 2020;42:563-79.
  31. Tefera M, Assefa N, Mengistie B, et al. Elective cesarean section on term pregnancies has a high risk for neonatal respiratory morbidity in developed countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Pediatrics. 2020;8:286.
  32. Nunes RR, Primo AM. Pethidine in Low Doses versus Dipyrone for Pain Relief in labor: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2019;41:84-9.
  33. Aydin Y, Inal S. Effect of Pethidine Administered During the First Stage of Labor on the Infants. International Journal of Caring Sciences. 2016;9:914-22.
  34. El-Refaie TA, El-Said MM, Shoukry AA, et al. Meperidine for uterine dystocia and its effect on duration of labor and neonatal acid-base status: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research. 2012;38:383-9.
  35. Baylas Şahin A, Yapar Eyi EG. The effects of amniotomy on labor duration, cesarean section rates, and maternal and fetal outcomes. Perinatal Journal. 2017;25:19-25.
  36. Battarbee AN, Glover AV, Stamilio DM. Association between early amniotomy in labour induction and severe maternal and neonatal morbidity. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2020;60:108-14.
  37. Afrose R, Mirza TT, Sarker K, et al. Effect of Amniotomy on Outcome of Spontaneous Labour. Mymensingh Medical Journal. 2021;30:6-12.
  38. Prosser SJ, Barnett AG, Miller YD. Factors promoting or inhibiting normal birth. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2018;18:241.
  39. Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, et al. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population‐based ecological study with longitudinal data. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;123:745-53.
  40. Kallianidis AF, Schutte JM, van Roosmalen J, van den Akker T. Maternal mortality after cesarean section in the Netherlands. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2018;229:148-52.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 4,504
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2,521


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب