ORIGINAL PAPER
Psychological and socio-demographic correlates of women’s decisions to give birth at home
Submission date: 2014-08-19
Acceptance date: 2014-08-19
Online publication date: 2014-09-18
Publication date: 2014-09-22
Health Psychology Report 2014;2(3):197-207
KEYWORDS
poród w domudomowe narodzinydyspozycyjny optymizmpoczucie własnej skutecznościstrategie radzenia sobie z bólembirth at homedispositional optimismperception of self-efficacycoping strategies for pain
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background
Some women decide to give birth at home. They treat their home as a safe place to do so, are against medicalization of natural labour or value activity and autonomy during labour. They are also characterized by good knowledge of their own bodies and about labour in general (including labour at home).
Psychological studies have revealed a correlation between labour (including the derived satisfaction) and the levels of dispositional optimism, perception of efficacy, and coping with pain. Analysis of the available demographic data shows that the decision to give birth at home is correlated with a certain socio-demographic profile of women.
Participants and procedures
One hundred thirty five mothers took part in the study. Among them 72 had given birth at home and 63 in a hospital. The following were assumed as important psychological determinants: dispositional optimism, sense of self-efficacy, strategies for coping with pain and their effectiveness. The LOT-R Test, GSES Scale, CSQ Questionnaire as well as a demographic questionnaire were used in the study.
Results
Women who gave birth at home were characterised by significantly higher levels of optimism and sense of self-efficacy in comparison with the other women. Women giving birth at home reinterpreted the sensations of pain more frequently than the others, who were more likely to catastrophise and pray/hope. The level of conviction about having control over pain was much higher in the experimental group. The relationship between choice of place to give birth and the level of education, marital status, area of residence as well as age is weak. Correlations between the place of birth and income, number of children as well as membership of religious communities are moderate and statistically significant.
Conclusions
It is important to see and meet the different expectations of the two distinct groups of women. Today’s phenomenon of homebirth requires systematic interdisciplinary research. The system of obstetric care should get ready for the ongoing social changes. It is also necessary to systematically collect socio-demographic data of women giving birth at home. Further research, as well as the use of current results in the process of selecting women to give birth at home, is suggested.
Some women decide to give birth at home. They treat their home as a safe place to do so, are against medicalization of natural labour or value activity and autonomy during labour. They are also characterized by good knowledge of their own bodies and about labour in general (including labour at home).
Psychological studies have revealed a correlation between labour (including the derived satisfaction) and the levels of dispositional optimism, perception of efficacy, and coping with pain. Analysis of the available demographic data shows that the decision to give birth at home is correlated with a certain socio-demographic profile of women.
Participants and procedures
One hundred thirty five mothers took part in the study. Among them 72 had given birth at home and 63 in a hospital. The following were assumed as important psychological determinants: dispositional optimism, sense of self-efficacy, strategies for coping with pain and their effectiveness. The LOT-R Test, GSES Scale, CSQ Questionnaire as well as a demographic questionnaire were used in the study.
Results
Women who gave birth at home were characterised by significantly higher levels of optimism and sense of self-efficacy in comparison with the other women. Women giving birth at home reinterpreted the sensations of pain more frequently than the others, who were more likely to catastrophise and pray/hope. The level of conviction about having control over pain was much higher in the experimental group. The relationship between choice of place to give birth and the level of education, marital status, area of residence as well as age is weak. Correlations between the place of birth and income, number of children as well as membership of religious communities are moderate and statistically significant.
Conclusions
It is important to see and meet the different expectations of the two distinct groups of women. Today’s phenomenon of homebirth requires systematic interdisciplinary research. The system of obstetric care should get ready for the ongoing social changes. It is also necessary to systematically collect socio-demographic data of women giving birth at home. Further research, as well as the use of current results in the process of selecting women to give birth at home, is suggested.
REFERENCES (51)
1.
Abel, S., & Kearns, R. A. (1991). Birth Places: A Geographical Perspective on Planned Home Birth in New Zeland. Social Science and Medicine, 33, 825-834.
2.
Beebe, K. R., Lee K. A., Carrieri-Kohlman, V., & Humphreys, J. (2007). The Effects of Childbirth Self-Efficacy and Anxiety During Pregnancy on Prehospitalization Labor. Journal Obstetrics Gynecology & Neonatal Nursing, 36, 410-418.
3.
Bebelska, K. P., & Chazan, B. (2011). Korzyści i ryzyko porodu w domu [The benefits and risks associated with homebirth]. In: M. Z. Stepulak, A. Irzmańska-Hudziak, J. Płońska (eds.). Dlaczego rodzić w domu? [Why give birth at home?] (pp. 59-69). Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
4.
Boucher, D., Bennett, C., McFarlin, B., & Freeze, R. (2009). Staying Home to Give Birth: Why Woman in the United States Choose Home Birth. Midwifery Womans Health, 54, 119-126.
5.
Budrowska, B. (2000). Macierzyństwo jako punkt zwrotny w życiu kobiety [Motherhood as a turning point in a woman’s life]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Funna.
6.
Callister, L. C., Khalaf, I., Semenic, S., Kartchner, R., & Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K. (2003). The Pain of Childbirth: Perceptions of Culturally Diverse Women. Pain Management Nurse, 4, 145-154.
7.
Callister, L. C., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., & Lauri, S. (2001). Giving Birth. Perceptions of Finnish Childbearing Women. American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 26, 28-32.
8.
Carver, Ch. S., & Gaines, J. G. (1987). Optimism, Pessimism, and Postpartum Depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 449-462.
9.
Chołuj, I. (2008). Urodzić razem i naturalnie [To give birth together and naturally]. Mszczonów: Fundacja Źródło Życia.
10.
Christiaens, W., & Bracke, P. (2007). Assessment of social psychological determinants of satisfaction with childbirth in a cross national perspective. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 7, 26.
11.
Dahlen, H. G., Barclay, L. M., & Homer, C. (2008). Preparing for the First Birth: Mothers’ Experiences at Home and in Hospital in Australia. Journal Perinatal Education, 17, 21-32.
12.
de Jonge, A., van der Goes, B., Ravelli, A., Amelink-Verburg, M., Mol, B., Nijhuis, J., Bennebroek Gravenhorst J., & Buitendijk, S. (2009). Perinatal Mortality and Morbidity in a Nationwide Cohort of 529 688 Low-Risk Planned Home and Hospital Births. International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 116, 1177-1184.
13.
Dilks, F. M., & Beal, J. A. (1997). Role of Self-Efficacy in Birth Choice. Journal Perinatal Neonatal Nursing, 11, 1-9.
14.
Domańska, U. (2012). Narodziny i system opieki położniczej w kulturze lęku [Birth and the obstetric care system in the culture of anxiety]. In: M. Gałuszka, & M. Wieczorkowska (eds.), Społeczne, kulturowe i polityczne uwarunkowania ryzyka zdrowotnego [Social, cultural and political determinants of health risk] (pp. 156-175). Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi.
15.
Dzierżak-Postek, E., Grzybowska, K., Krauze, M., Oleś, K., Romanowska, M., & Witkiewicz, M. (2010). Model opieki nad kobietą i dzieckiem w fizjologicznym okresie okołoporodowym w praktyce pozaszpitalnej [The model of care over a woman and child in the physiological perinatal period in the non-hospital practice]. Położna. Nauka i Praktyka, 4, 8-19.
16.
European Court of Human Rights, ECHR 2011/6 Case of Ternovszky v. Hungary, 14 December 2010, no. 67545/09 (Second Section). Retreived from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/site...]} [26.08.2014].
17.
Green, J. N. (1993). Expectations and Experiences of Pain in Labor: Findings from a Large Prospective Study. Birth, 20, 65-72.
18.
Hildingsson, I., Radestad, I., & Lindgren, H. (2010). Birth Preferences that Deviate from the Norm in Sweden: Planned Home Birth versus Planned Cesaren Section. Birth, 37, 288-295.
19.
Janiuk, E. (2011). Domowe narodziny – odpowiedzią na potrzeby rodziny [Homebirth – an answer to family needs]. In: M. Z. Stepulak, A. Irzmańska-Hudziak, & J. Płońska (eds.), Dlaczego rodzić w domu? [Why give birth at home?] (pp. 148-152). Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
20.
Janiuk, E., & Lichtenberg-Kokoszka, E. (2010). Domowe narodziny. Fanaberia szaleńców czy powrót do normalności? [Homebirth. A mad whim or return to normality?]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Impuls.
22.
Juczyński, Z. (2001). Narzędzia pomiaru w promocji i psychologii zdrowia [Measurement tools in promotion and psychology of health]. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
23.
Juczyński, Z. (1998). Poczucie własnej skuteczności jako wyznacznik zachowań zdrowotnych [Sense of self-efficacy as an indicator of health behaviours]. Promocja Zdrowia. Nauki Społeczne i Medycyna, 14, 54-63.
24.
Juczyński, Z. (2000). Poczucie własnej skuteczności – teoria i pomiar [Sense of self-efficacy – theory and measurement]. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Psychologica, 4, 11-24.
25.
Kitzinger, S. (1995). Rodzić w domu [To give birth at home]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
26.
Kornas-Biela, D. (2011). Psychologiczny kontekst rodzenia w domu [The psychological context of giving birth at home]. In: M. Z. Stepulak, A. Irzmańska-Hudziak, & J. Płońska (eds.), Dlaczego rodzić w domu? [Why give birth at home?] (pp. 178-181). Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
27.
Krauze, M. (2012). Bezpieczeństwo porodów domowych w statystyce [The statistics of safety of homebirth]. Rynek Zdrowia, 18.10.2012, http://www.rynekzdrowia.pl/Moi... (10.12.2012).
28.
Kubicka-Kraszyńska, U., Otffinowska, A., & Pietrusiewicz, J. (eds.). (2006). O bólu porodowym i metodach jego łagodzenia [About the labour pain and the methods of its alleviation]. Warszawa: Fundacja Rodzić po Ludzku.
29.
Lally, J. E., Murtagh, M. J., Macphail, S., & Thomson, R. (2008). More in Hope than Expectation: a Systematic Review of Women`s Expectations and Experience of Pain Relief in Labor. BMC Medicine, 14, 6-7.
30.
Leap, N., Sandall, J., Buckland, S., & Huber, U. (2010). Journey to Confidence: Women’s Experiences of Pain in Labor and Relational Continuity of Care. Journal of Midwifery Womens Health, 55, 234-242.
31.
Lindgren, H., & Erlandsson, K. (2010). Women’s Experiences of Empwerment in a Planned Home Birth: A Swedish Population-based Study. Birth, 37, 307-319.
32.
Lindgren, H. E., Hildingsson, I. M., Christensson, K., & Radestad, I. J. (2008). Transfers in Planned Home Births related to Midwife Availability and Continuity: a Nationwide Population-Based Study. Birth, 35, 9-15.
33.
Lobel, M., de Vincent, C. J., Kaminer, A., & Meyer, B. A. (2000). The Impact of Prenatal Maternal Stress and Optimistic Disposition on Birth Outcomes in Medically High-Risk Women. Health Psychology, 19, 544-553.
34.
Lothian, J. A. (2010). How Do Women Who Plan Home Birth Prepare for Childbirth? Journal Perinatal Education, 19, 62-67.
35.
Lowe, N. K. (1991). Maternal Confidence in Coping with Labor: A Self-Efficacy Concept. Journal of Obstetrical and Gynecological Neonatal Nursing, 20, 457-463.
36.
Lowe, N. K. (1996). The Pain and Discomfort of Labor and Birth. Journal of Obstetetric Gynecologic Neonatal Nursing, 25, 82-92.
37.
Lowe, N. K. (2000). Self-Efficacy for Labor and Childbirth Fears in Nulliparous Pregnant Women. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynekology, 4, 219-224.
38.
Manning, M. M., & Wright, T. L. (1983). Self-Efficacy Expectancies, Outcome Expectancies, and the Persistence of Pain Control in Childbirth. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 45, 421-431.
39.
McDorman, M. F., Declerq, E., & Menacker, F. (2011). Trend and Characteristc of Home Births in the United States by Race and Ethnicity, 1990-2006. Birth, 38, 17-23.
40.
McDorman, M. F., Declerq, E., & Mathews, T. J. (2011). United States Home Birth Increase. Birth, 38, 185-190.
41.
Pawlicka, P., Chrzan-Dętkoś, M., & Lutkiewicz K. (2013). Prężność psychiczna przyszłych matek oraz kolejność ciąży jako moderatory budowania więzi z nienarodzonym jeszcze dzieckiem [Mental resilience of future mothers and the number of pregnancy as moderators of building a bond with an unborn child]. Family Forum, 3, 139-152.
43.
Poprawa, R. (1996). Zasoby osobiste w radzeniu sobie ze stresem [Personal resources in coping with stress]. In: G. Dolińska-Zygmunt (ed.), Elementy Psychologi Zdrowia [Elements of Health Psychology] (pp. 101-136). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
44.
Rieger, K., & Dempsey, R. (2006). Performing Birth in a Culture of Fear: An Embodied Crisis of Late Modernity. Health Sociology Review: Journal of the Health Section of the Australian Sociological Association, 15, 364-373.
45.
Sagov, S. E., Feinbloom, R. I., Spindel, P., & Brodsky, A. (eds.). (1984). Home Birth: a Practitioners Guide to Birth Outside the Hospital. Rockville: Aspen Publishers.
46.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.
47.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201-228.
48.
Viisainen, K. (2000). The moral dangers of home birth: parents’ perceptions of risks in home birth in Finland. Sociology of Health & Illness, 22, 792-814.
49.
Viisainen, K. (2001). Negotiating Control and Meaning: Home Birth as a Self-Constructed Choice in Finland. Social Science Medicine, 52, 1109-1121.
50.
Wegers, T. A., van der Zee, J., & Keirse, M. J. (1998). Transfer from Home to Hospital: What is its Effect on the Experience of Childbirth? Birth, 25, 19-24.
51.
Witkiewicz, M. (2011). Znaczenie bólu porodowego [The meaning of labour pain]. Magazyn Pielęgniarki i Położnej, 1-2, 50-51.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2353-5571 |
| ISSN: | 2353-4184 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
