| Literature DB >> 29983818 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pictorial education could provide an innovative approach for health educators which help to increase health-related information, the attention of individuals, comprehension, and recall. AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of pictorial perception of labour process by persuading Iranian women toward normal vaginal delivery.Entities:
Keywords: Parturition; Pictorial Education; Pregnant Women
Year: 2018 PMID: 29983818 PMCID: PMC6026440 DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Access Maced J Med Sci ISSN: 1857-9655
Instrument construction
| Scales | [ | CVI | CVR[ | Reliability coefficient |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of NVD Benefits | 11 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.86 |
| Knowledge of CS Complication | 17 | 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.92 |
| Attitude toward NVD | 15 | 0.95 | 0. 97 | 0.69 |
| Subjective Norms of NVD | 8 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.83 |
| Outcome Expectations of NVD | 12 | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.93 |
| Self-Efficacy for NVD | 5 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.85 |
| Intention to Choose NVD | 2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.90 |
-Content Validity Index;
-Content Validity Ratio.
Characteristics of participants and their relationship with the choice of delivery method (n = 76)
| Variables | Intervention Group (n = 37) | Control Group (n = 39) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | P-value | n (%) | P-value | |
| Educational level | 0.011[ | 0.107 | ||
| High school | 25 (67.6%) | 26 (66.7%) | ||
| University | 12 (32.4%) | 13 (33.3%) | ||
| Spouse Educational level | ||||
| Elementary | 1 (2.7%) | 0.541 | 6 (15.4%) | 0.351 |
| Middle school | 3 (8.1%) | 7 (17.9%) | ||
| High school | 15 (40.5%) | 12 (30.8%) | ||
| University | 18 (48.6%) | 14 (35.9%) | ||
| Employment status | [ | |||
| Housewife | 34 (91.9%) | 0.554 | 39 (100%) | NS |
| Employed | 3 (8.1%) | 0 | ||
| Spouse Employment status | 8 (21.6%) | 0.431 | 0.471 | |
| Staffer | 3 (8.1%) | 2 (5.1%) | ||
| Worker | 26 (70.3%) | 2 (5.1%) | ||
| Self-employment | 35 (89.7%) | |||
| Housing finance Status | 0.124 | 0.151 | ||
| Landlord | 18 (48.6%) | 20 (51.3%) | ||
| Leased | 19 (51.4%) | 19 (48.7%) | ||
| Having an independent life | 0.711[ | 0.571 | ||
| Yes | 28 (75.5%) | 24 (61.5%) | ||
| No | 9 (24.3%) | 15 (38.5%) | ||
| History of smoking | 0 | |||
| Yes | 37 (100%) | NS | 0 | NS |
| No | 39 (100%) | |||
| Spouse History of smoking | ||||
| Yes | 4 (10.8%) | 0.283[ | 1 (2.6%) | 0.410[ |
| No | 33 (89.2%) | 38 (97.4%) | ||
| Household income | ||||
| Low | 15 (40.5%) | 10 (25.6%) | 0. 264[ | |
| Average | 22 (59.5%) | 29 (74.4%) | ||
| High | 0 | 0 | ||
| Having health insurance | ||||
| Yes | 20 (54.1) | 0.457 | 27 (69.2%) | 0. 726[ |
| No | 17 (45.9%) | 12 (30.8%) | ||
| Having supplemental insurance | ||||
| Yes | 7 (18.9%) | [ | 6 (15.4%) | 0.370[ |
| No | 30 (81.1%) | 0.677 | 33 (84.6%) | |
| Pregnancy | ||||
| Wanted | 30 (81.1%) | 0.408[ | 36 (92.3%) | 0.557[ |
| Unwanted | 7 (18.9%) | 3 (7.7%) | ||
| Type of prenatal care | ||||
| Private physicians | 0 | 0.204 | 2 (5.1%) | 0.099 |
| Health care centre | 17 (45.9%) | 17 (43.6%) | ||
| Both | 20 (54.1%) | 20 (51.3%) | ||
| Medical doctor’s recommendation to choosing the CS | ||||
| Yes | 1 (2.7%) | 0.405[ | 1 (2.6%) | 1.000[ |
| No | 36 (97.3%) | 38 (97.4%) | ||
| Place of delivery | ||||
| Private hospital | 1 (2.7%) | 1.000 | 0 | NS |
| Public hospital | 36 (97.3%) | 39 (100%) | ||
P-value based on chi-square test;
P-value based on Fisher’s Exact test; No statistics are computed because this is a constant.
Comparing the means scores Knowledge, Attitude, Subjective Norms related to NVD, Outcome Expectations of NVD, and Self-Efficacy for NVD among Participants; before and after the intervention
| Variables | Measurement | Intervention Group (n = 37) | Control Group (n = 39) | P-valuea,b |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |||
| Knowledge of NVD Benefits | ||||
| B | 17.32 ± 3.33 | 17.59 ± 3.66 | 0.371a† | |
| A1 | 20.73 ± 1.83* | |||
| A2 | 21.03 ± 1.34*# | |||
| A3 | 21.35 ± 0.94*# | 19.61 ± 2.94 | <0.001b | |
| P-value c,d | <0.001c | <0.001d | ||
| Knowledge of CS Complication | ||||
| B | 20.5 ± 4.58 | 20.13 ± 5.32 | 0.474a† | |
| A1 | 30.08 ± 5.38* | |||
| A2 | 32.16 ± 4.91*# | |||
| A3 | 32.57 ± 2.15*# | 23.62 ± 5.19 | <0.001b | |
| P-value c,d | <0.001c | <0.001d | ||
| Positive Attitude toward NVD | ||||
| B | 53.30 ± 9.45 | 52.46 ± 10.43 | 0.356a† | |
| A1 | 55.49 ± 8.14 | |||
| A2 | 60.46 ± 8.69*# | |||
| A3 | 61.05 ± 10.96*# | 52.79 ± 11.93 | <0.001b | |
| P-value c,d | <0.001c | 0.301d | ||
| Subjective Norms of NVD | ||||
| B | 19.92 ± 9.36 | 19.79 ± 8.12 | 0.475a† | |
| A1 | 19.62 ± 5.28 | |||
| A2 | 19.65 ± 6.30 | |||
| A3 | 18.84 ± 6.76 | 17.95 ± 8.42 | 0.559b | |
| P-value c,d | 0.686c | <0.001d | ||
| Outcome Expectations of NVD | ||||
| B | 52.03 ± 10.56 | 50.69 ± 9.00 | 0.277a† | |
| A1 | 54.04 ± 6.73 | |||
| A2 | 55.59 ± 5.41 | |||
| A3 | 55.23 ± 8.21 | 52.36 ± 9.05 | <0.135b | |
| P-value c,d | <0.059c | <0.007d | ||
| Self-Efficacy for NVD | B | 15.00 ± 8.03 | 12.85 ± 6.93 | 0.107a† |
| A1 | 13.78 ± 6.25 | |||
| A2 | 15.57 ± 6.52# | |||
| A3 | 16.16 ± 6.26# | 12.23 ± 7.44 | 0.028b | |
| P-value c,d | 0.057c | <0.107d |
B-Before the intervention; A1-The first stage after the intervention (after completion the second training session); A2-The second stage after the intervention (immediately after the completion of the training sessions); A3-The third stage after the intervention (First visit after the completion of the training sessions); *-Significant intra-group differences with pre-intervention stage values; #-Significant intra-group differences with the values of the first stage after the intervention; a-P-value based on Independent T-test samples and a single tide is reported; †-Variables are reported on the basis of equal variances of Independent T-test; b-The P-value based on ANKOVA (Covariance); c-P-value based on Greenhouse-Geisser; d-P-value based on Paired-samples T-test and a single tide is reported; - The range of questions is knowledge of CS complication (0-34); - The range of questions is knowledge of NVD benefits (0-22); - The range of questions is positive attitude toward NVD (15-75); - The range of questions is subjective norms of NVD (8-40); - The range of questions is outcome expectations of NVD (12-60); - The range of questions is self-efficacy of NVD (5-25).
Intention to Choose NVD among Participants; before and after the intervention
| Variables | Measurement | Intervention Group (n = 37) | Control Group (n = 39) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n(%) | n(%) | ||||
| Intention to Choose NVD | |||||
| B | CS | 22 (?59.55) | 24 (?61.5) | 0.853a | |
| NVD | 15 (?40.5) | 15 (?40.5) | |||
| A1 | CS | 18 (?48.6) | |||
| NVD | 19 (?51.4) | ||||
| A2 | CS | 14 (?37.8) | |||
| NVD | 23 (?62.2) | ||||
| A3 | CS | 12 (?32.4) | 22 (?56.4) | < 0.036 a | |
| NVD | 25 (?67.6) | 17 (?43.6) | |||
| P-value c,d | <0.001b | <0.343d | |||
B-Before the intervention; A1-The first stage after the intervention (after completing the second training session); A2-The second stage after the intervention (immediately after the completion of the training sessions); A3-The third stage after the intervention (immediately after the completion of the training sessions); a-P-value based on Chi-square test;
b-The P-value based on Cochran’s test; c-P-value based on Mc-Nemar test and a single tide are reported;
Significant intra-group differences with the pre-intervention stage.
Choice of delivery method among Participants; before and after the delivery
| Variables | Intervention Group (n = 37) | Control Group (n = 39) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N(%) | N(%) | |||
| Choice of delivery method | ||||
| Before the delivery | CS | 22 (?59.5) | 23 (?59.0) | 0.966 |
| NVD | 15 (?40.5) | 16 (?41.0) | ||
| After the delivery | CS | 19 (?51.4) | 24 (?61.5) | 0.370 |
| NVD | 18 (?48.6) | 15 (?38.5) | ||
P-value based on Chi-square test.