| Literature DB >> 35784209 |
Shidi Liu1,2,3,4, Yi Jin1,2,3,4, Hongmei Li5, Tingting Zeng5, Ge Zhou5, Lili Yu5, Yao Fan1,2,3,4, Xun Lei1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Background: Fear of childbirth is a prevalent issue among women, with a wide range of interventions to dispel it. Here we explored a novel and beneficial intervention and one possible influence mechanism of it.Entities:
Keywords: fear of childbirth; interventions; musical activities; positive affect; structural equation meddling
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35784209 PMCID: PMC9247401 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.906996
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
The observational variables' loadings of the musical activities.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Musical activities | 0.829 | 0.855 | 0.424 | 0.396 |
| Frequency of playing instruments | Time of playing instruments | Frequency of dancing | Time of dancing | |
| Musical activtities | 0.242 | 0.261 | 0.212 | 0.231 |
PA scores and FOC scores by demographic characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 53.624 | <0.01 | 10.265 | 0.0164 | |||
| Junior high school or below | 24 (20, 28) | 101 (9.59) | 28 (21, 36) | ||||
| High school | 25 (20, 28) | 222 (21.08) | 29 (23, 37) | ||||
| Postsecondary Specialized College | 25.5 (21, 30) | 360 (34.19) | 31 (25, 39) | ||||
| Bachelor degree or higher | 28 (24, 31) | 370 (35.14) | 28 (23, 36) | ||||
|
| <0.01 | 0.706 | |||||
| No | 25 (20, 29) | 430 (40.84) | 29 (24, 37) | ||||
| Yes | 27 (22, 30) | 623 (59.16) | 29 (23, 36.5) | ||||
|
| 0.377 | <0.01 | |||||
| Parous women | 26 (21, 30) | 351 (33.33) | 26 (20, 32) | ||||
| Nulliparous women | 26 (21, 30) | 702 (66.67) | 31 (25, 38) | ||||
|
| 36.619 | <0.01 | 0.592 | 0.898 | |||
| ≤RMB 3,000 | 25 (20, 29) | 414 (39.32) | 30 (24, 37) | ||||
| RMB 3,001–5,000 | 26 (22, 30) | 468 (44.44) | 29 (23, 36) | ||||
| RMB 5,001–10,000 | 28 (22, 31) | 131 (12.44) | 28 (23, 38) | ||||
| >RMB 10,000 | 30 (26.75, 34) | 40 (3.80) | 30.5 (22.25, 35) | ||||
|
| 5.228 | 0.0732 | 0.296 | 0.862 | |||
| City | 26 (21, 30) | 901 (85.57) | 29 (23, 37) | ||||
| County and town | 24 (20, 29) | 137 (13.01) | 30 (24, 36) | ||||
| Country | 27 (21.5, 29.5) | 15 (1.42) | 29 (25.5, 36) | ||||
|
| 0.392 | 0.334 | |||||
| Unclear family | 26 (21, 30) | 538 (51.09) | 30 (23, 38) | ||||
| Stem family | 26 (22, 30) | 515 (48.91) | 29 (24, 35) | ||||
|
| 5.504 | 0.0638 | 0.605 | 0.739 | |||
| First trimester | 25 (21, 29) | 208 (19.75) | 29.5 (23, 36) | ||||
| Second trimester | 26 (21, 30) | 264 (25.07) | 29 (23, 26.25) | ||||
| Last trimester | 26 (21, 30) | 581 (55.18) | 29 (24, 37) |
Figure 1Overall structural model. Standardized path coefficients are presented. *stands for P < 0.05. SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) = 0.048, RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Bayesian) = 0.063, CFI (Comparative Fit Index) = 0.950, TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) = 0.941, chi-square/df ratio = 597.688/116=5.152.M1 = FOS (Frequency of singing) + TOS (Time of singing); M2 = FLM (Frequency of listening to music) + TLM (Time of listening to music); M3 = FPI (Frequency of playing instruments) + TPI (Time of playing instruments) + FOD (Frequency of dancing) + TOD (Time of dancing); Indirect effect: −0.026 (P = 0.030), total effect = 0.003 (P = 0.943).