James W Alexander1,2,3, Emmanuel Karantanis4,5, Robin M Turner4,6, Kate Faasse4, Chelsea Watt5. 1. The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Jwood.alexander@gmail.com. 2. St George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia. Jwood.alexander@gmail.com. 3. Moorabbin Hospital, 823-865 Centre Road, Bentleigh East, NSW, 3165, Australia. Jwood.alexander@gmail.com. 4. The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 5. St George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia. 6. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Evidence regarding how women feel about episiotomies is not recorded in the literature. As the most common surgical procedure, there is a need to understand how women feel about episiotomy. METHODS: The primary outcome was to identify the percentage of women who would accept an episiotomy if required. A literature review was compiled to provide nulliparous women in their third trimester with evidence-based information about episiotomies and perineal tears. Questions eliciting demographics, pre-information level of anxiety and acceptance of episiotomy were asked. After reading the information sheets, anxiety and knowledge were assessed again. Changes in anxiety levels from pre- to post-information were investigated using paired samples t tests. Because anxiety was measured on a scale, we assessed potential departures from normality by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Questions also assessed the value women placed on this form of education. RESULTS: There were 105 responses, with 88% accepting episiotomy, 2% declining and 10% seeking more information to decide. Eighty-one percent of women agreed that the information provided helped them to understand more about childbirth and 62% agreed that they felt more comfortable with the birthing process after reading the material. There was a reduction in anxiety levels regarding episiotomies after reading information (p = 0.002) and perineal tears (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Most women will accept an episiotomy if required. Antenatal education about episiotomies is important to women and helps them feel more comfortable with the birthing process. Written information increases acceptance and reduces anxiety levels regarding episiotomies.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Evidence regarding how women feel about episiotomies is not recorded in the literature. As the most common surgical procedure, there is a need to understand how women feel about episiotomy. METHODS: The primary outcome was to identify the percentage of women who would accept an episiotomy if required. A literature review was compiled to provide nulliparous women in their third trimester with evidence-based information about episiotomies and perineal tears. Questions eliciting demographics, pre-information level of anxiety and acceptance of episiotomy were asked. After reading the information sheets, anxiety and knowledge were assessed again. Changes in anxiety levels from pre- to post-information were investigated using paired samples t tests. Because anxiety was measured on a scale, we assessed potential departures from normality by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Questions also assessed the value women placed on this form of education. RESULTS: There were 105 responses, with 88% accepting episiotomy, 2% declining and 10% seeking more information to decide. Eighty-one percent of women agreed that the information provided helped them to understand more about childbirth and 62% agreed that they felt more comfortable with the birthing process after reading the material. There was a reduction in anxiety levels regarding episiotomies after reading information (p = 0.002) and perineal tears (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Most women will accept an episiotomy if required. Antenatal education about episiotomies is important to women and helps them feel more comfortable with the birthing process. Written information increases acceptance and reduces anxiety levels regarding episiotomies.
Authors: I Gurol-Urganci; D A Cromwell; L C Edozien; T A Mahmood; E J Adams; D H Richmond; A Templeton; J H van der Meulen Journal: BJOG Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Christophe Clesse; Joëlle Lighezzolo-Alnot; Sylvie De Lavergne; Sandrine Hamlin; Michèle Scheffler Journal: Health Care Women Int Date: 2018-04-02
Authors: Jeroen van Bavel; Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven; Charlotte de Vries; Dimitri N M Papatsonis; Joey de Vogel; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Ben Willem Mol; Jan Willem de Leeuw Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Sari Räisänen; Tuomas Selander; Rufus Cartwright; Mika Gissler; Michael R Kramer; Katariina Laine; Seppo Heinonen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Aseel K Haji; Suha R Elzahrany; Rozana I Kamal; Alanood E Sindi; Linah K Khairou; Rahaf M Alahmadi; Albagir M Hassan Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X Date: 2022-07-12
Authors: Anna Seijmonsbergen-Schermers; Suzanne Thompson; Esther Feijen-de Jong; Marrit Smit; Marianne Prins; Thomas van den Akker; Ank de Jonge Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Theresia Krieger; Sandra Salm; Antje Dresen; Anna Arning; Kathrin Schwickerath; Andrea Göttel; Stefanie Houwaart; Holger Pfaff; Natalia Cecon Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 3.390