Objectives of the study
The following are the objectives of this study:
1. To assess demographic variables among the mothers.
2. To assess the psychosocial status of the antenatal mother.
3. To assess the pregnancy outcome.
4. To investigate the relationship between psychosocial status and pregnancy outcome.
Introduction
Pregnancy is the most wonderful experience of a woman’s life. It is also one of the most important transitional phases, during which the mother has mixed feelings of joy and anxiety. Any problem during this phase may have a direct effect on the mother and the fetus.
Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy are the adaptations that a woman’s body undergoes during pregnancy to accommodate the growing embryo or fetus. These physiologic changes are entirely normal and include behavioral (brain), cardiovascular (heart and blood vessels), hematologic (blood), metabolic, renal (kidney), posture, and respiratory (breathing) changes. Increases in blood sugar, breathing, and cardiac output are all expected changes that allow a pregnant mother’s body to facilitate the proper growth and development of the embryo or fetus during the pregnancy. The pregnant mother and placenta also produce many other hormones that have a range of effects during the pregnancy (1).
Limitations of the study
The limitations of the study are as follows:
• The study only includes antenatal mothers.
• The study is limited only to mothers with gestational ages of 32 to 40 weeks admitted to selected hospitals.
• The study is limited to only 50 subjects.
Sampling technique
According to Polit and Beck (2), sampling refers to the process of selecting a portion of the population that represents the entire population.
In this study, sampling was done in stages as listed hereunder:
• One hospital was selected for the study.
• A non-probability, purposive sampling technique was used to select the final study subject. All ante- natal mothers in their third trimester admitted to the selected hospital were included in the study.
Sample size
The sample consists of a subset of the units that comprise the population. The total number of antenatal mothers in their third trimester selected for the study was 50.
Calculation of the sample size:
The sample size was calculated based on the following formula:
where n = required sample size
z = confidence level at 95% (standard value of 1.96).
p = estimated prevalence = 25%.
q = 100 – 25 = 75
i.e., approximately 50.
Therefore, the sample size will be 46.82 (42.62 + 4.2).
Hence, approximately the sample size for this study will be 50.
Analysis and finding
1. Description of subjects (antenatal mothers with 32 to 40 weeks of gestation) according to demographic characteristics by percentage.
Table 1 deals with the demographic data of third trimester antenatal mothers with regard to age, occupation, type of family, gravidity, and gestational age.
Table 1. Socio-demographic data.
• Age: A total of 54% (majority) of antenatal mothers are between the ages of 21 and 25, 32% are between the ages of 26 and 30, and 14% are in the age group of 20.
• Occupation: The majority of all the antenatal mothers were housewives, i.e., 100%.
• Type of family: Findings regarding type of family were that 56% of the antenatal mothers were from joint families and 44% of the antenatal mothers were from nuclear families.
• Gravida: 56% of the antenatal mothers were primigravida, while 44% of the antenatal mothers were multigravida.
• Gestational age: The majority (88% of antenatal mothers) were gestational ages 37 and above, while only 12% were gestational ages of < 37.
2. Description of subjects (antenatal mothers with 32–40 weeks of gestation) to assess the psychosocial status of antenatal mothers.
Table 2 deals with psychosocial status of antenatal mothers.
Table 2. Psychosocial status of antenatal mothers.
• Table 2 shows that the majority of 38 antenatal mothers (76%), had a higher concern psychosocial score, while 12 antenatal mothers (24%), had some concern psychosocial score.
3. Description of subjects (antenatal mothers’ 32–40 weeks of gestation) according to pregnancy outcome- wise distribution of cases.
Table 3 deals with the pregnancy outcome-wise distribution.
Table 3. Pregnancy outcome-wise distribution.
Mode of delivery: A total of 84% of the mothers have normal vaginal deliveries, while 16% of the mothers deliver by caesarean section.
Condition of baby: The conditions of 88% of the babies were good, while 12% were very good.
Mood of mother: A total of 86% of the mother’s mood was happy after delivery, while 14% of the mother’s mood was very happy after delivery.
Condition of mother: A total of 98% of the mother’s condition was good after delivery, while 2% of the mother’s condition was very good after delivery.
Breast feeding started immediately: A total of 100% of the mothers started breast feeding immediately after delivery.
Family feeling: After the mother’s delivery, 74% of families reported being happy, with 26% reporting being extremely happy.
4. Description of subjects (antenatal mothers’ 32–40 weeks of gestation) according to the association between mode of delivery and psychosocial score.
Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.082.
Table 4 deals with the modes of delivery.
Table 4. Modes of delivery.
Table 4 reveals a link between mode of delivery and psychosocial score.
Normal delivery: The majority, i.e., 34 mothers, had nor- mal vaginal delivery, and their psychosocial score was between 74 and 100. It demonstrates increased concern about the pregnancy outcome, whereas eight mothers had normal vaginal deliveries and their psychosocial score indicated some concern about the pregnancy outcome.
Caesarean section: Caesarean section delivered, the mother’s score expressed higher concern about the pregnancy outcome in 4 cases, while in the other 4 cases, the score was lower.
5. Subjects were described (antenatal mothers 32–40 weeks of gestation) based on the relationship between baby condition and psychosocial score.
Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.14.
Table 5 deals with the association between the conditions of baby and psychosocial scores in the study group.
Table 5. Association between the condition of baby and psychosocial score in the study group.
• The majority, i.e., 35 babies, had good conditions and their mother’s psychosocial score was higher, while 9 babies’ conditions were good and their mother’s psychosocial score was some.
• Three babies’ conditions were very good, while the mother’s psychosocial score was some.
6. Subjects were described (an antenatal mother’s 32–40 weeks of gestation) based on the relationship between the mother’s mood and psychosocial score.
Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.048.
Table 6 deals with the association between the mood of the mother and her psychosocial status.
Table 6. Association between the mood of the mother and her psychosocial status.
• Table 6 shows that the majority of the 35 mothers’ psychosocial scores were happy; however, the 8 mothers’ psychosocial scores were very happy; however, they expressed some concern about the pregnancy outcome.
• The third mother’s psychosocial score was extremely positive; it is higher, whereas the fourth mother’s psychosocial score was extremely positive; it is some.
7. Description of subjects (an antenatal mother’s 32–40 weeks of gestation) according to the association between the condition of the mother and the psychosocial score.
Fisher’s exact test, P = 1.
Table 7 examines the relationship between the mother’s condition and the psychosocial score.
Table 7. Relationship between the mother’s condition and the psychosocial score.
• Table 7 shows that the majority of 37 mothers’ conditions were good, and their psychosocial scores were high, whereas the condition of 12 mothers was good, but their psychosocial score was low.
• The very good condition of the mother’s psychosocial score was higher in one case.
8. Description of subjects (an antenatal mother’s 32–40 weeks of gestation) according to the association between family feeling and psychosocial score
Chi-square = 4.73, P = 0.03.
Table 8 deals with the association between family feelings and the psychosocial score.
Table 8. Association between family feelings and the psychosocial score.
• According to Table 8, the majority of 31 mother’s family feelings were happy, and their psychosocial score was high, whereas the majority of six mother’s family feelings were happy, but their psychosocial score was some.
• Very happy mother’s family feelings and psychosocial score was high in 7 cases and some in 6 cases.
Conclusion
The findings of our study support the conclusion that there was a link between psychosocial status and pregnancy outcome in the current study. All of the antenatal mother’s psychosocial scores were in the higher range. The antenatal mother’s psychosocial score was mixed. None of them were thought to have a low psychosocial score. This was seen when the questionnaire was given to them and filled out by them.
The mother’s emotional state during the antenatal period, as well as the postnatal outcome, is determined by her psychosocial status.
Acknowledgments
Gratitude is a miracle in and of itself. It brings out a sense of appreciation and sincerity in a person. It is my greatest privilege to recall many persons to whom I am indebted for their contributions in various ways, directly or indirectly. I express my gratitude with profound sentiments of heartfelt thanks. “The peace of God is with them whose mind and soul are in harmony, who are free from desire and wrath, who know their own soul.” To be grateful is to recognize the love of God in every- thing he has given us. Firstly, I am thankful to Almighty God, whose grace and countless blessings were experienced throughout the study. A good teacher can inspire hope, ignite the imagination, and instil a love of learning. I wish to acknowledge and express my deepest gratitude to my esteemed teacher and guide, Dr. Mrs. Manisha Kadam, Prof. Sadhu Vaswani College of Nursing, for her unwavering support, collegiality, mentorship, and sustained patience throughout the study. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Dr. Mrs. Sripriya Gopalkrishnan, Principal of Sadhu Vaswani College of Nursing, for her valuable suggestions and sup- port throughout the study. I am grateful to Mrs. Jaya John Verges, Associate Professor at Sadhu Vaswani College of Nursing, for her excellent guidance, valuable suggestions, and advice. I wish to convey my deep gratitude and appreciation to all participants for their willing participation and co-operation, without whom this study would not have been possible. I express my thanks to Mr. Pradip Borle, a statistician for his timely and good cooperation and his help with the statistical analysis. Evaluation and validation in every study are important. Thanks to all the experts who validated the content of my tool with their enlightened suggestions. I am also grateful to Mr. Antenio Periera for editing the content of my article. I am obligated to all the faculty members, the teaching and non-teaching staff of Sadhu Vaswani College of Nursing, for their constant support and help whenever needed. With great pleasure, I thank my husband, Mr. Ashish Gaikwad, and my brothers and sisters, all my family members, for their prayers, blessings, encouragement, and financial support, which gave me confidence to achieve my goal. There are several hands and hearts behind this study to bring it to this final shape. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has been directly or indirectly involved with the study at various levels but who was not mentioned in the acknowledgment section. I will always remember each and every one for their contribution. Once again, my special thanks to all: “Thank you for the good times, the days you filled with pleasure.” “Thank you for fond memories and for feelings I’ll always treasure.”
References
1. Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia. Available online at: www.wikipedia.com
3. Austin MP, Fisher J, Reilly N. Identifying perinatal depression and anxiety: evidence–based practice in screening, psychosocial assessment, and management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Online Library (2015). doi: 10.1002/9781118509722.ch8
4. Johanna M, Mathibe-Neke J, Rothberg A, Langley G. The perception of midwives regarding psychosocial risk assessment during antenatal care. Health SA Gesondheid. (2014) 19:9.
5. Curry M, Durham L, Bullock L, Bloom T, Davis J. Nurse case management for pregnant women experiencing or at risk for abuse. J Obstetr Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. (2006) 35:181–92.
6. Dejin-Karlsson E, Ostergren P. Psychosocial factors, lifestyle and fetal growth: the added value of both pre- and post– natal assessments. Eur J Public Health. (2003) 13:210–7.
7. Clinical Guideline. Antenatal care routine care for the healthy pregnant women. London: National Collaborating Centre for Womens and Children’s (2013). p. 26–40.
8. World Health Organization. Mental health, maternal mental health. Available online at: www.worldhealthorganization.com
9. Langer A. Support during pregnancy for women at an increased risk of low birth weight babies: RHL commentary the W.H.O. Geneva: World Health Organization (2003). p. 1–2.
10. Loomans E, van Dijk A, Vrijkotte T, van Eijsden M, Stronks K, Gemke R, et al. Psychosocial stress during pregnancy is related to adverse birth outcomes: results from a large multi- ethnic community-based birth cohort. Eur J Public Health. (2013) -23:485–91. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cks097
11. Rizzardo R, Magni G, Andreoli C. Psychosocial aspects during pregnancy and obstetrical complications. J. Psychos Obstetr Gynecol. (1985) 4:11–22.
12. Kavanaugh V, Fierro M, Suttle D, Heyl P, Bendheim S, Powell V. Psychosocial Risk Factors as Contributors to pregnancy- associated death in Virginia, 1999–2001. J Women’s Health. (2009) 18:1041–8. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2008.1037
13. Delbaere I, Verstraelen H, Goetgeluk S, Martens G, De Backer G, Temmerman M. Pregnancy outcome in primipara of advanced maternal age. Eur J Obstetr Gynecol Reproduct Biol. (2007) 135:41–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.10.030
14. Carroll J, Reid A, Biringer A, Wilson L, Midmer D. Psychosocial risk factors during pregnancy. Can Fam Phys Med Fam. (1994) 40:1280–9.
15. Omidvar S, Faramarzi M, Hajian-Tilak K, Nasiri Amiri F. Associations of psychosocial factors with pregnancy health life styles. PLoS One. (2018) 13:e091723. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191723
16. Young R, Lane W, Stephens S, Mayden B, Fox R. Psychosocial factors associated with healthy and Unhealthy interpregnancy intervals. Health Equity. (2018) 2:22–9. doi: 10.1089/heq.2017.0017
17. Robinson A, Benzies K, Cairns S, Fung T, Tough S. Who is distressed? A comparision of psychosocial status in 124 pregnancy across seven ethnicities. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2016) 11:215. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-1015-8
18. Spyridou A, Schauer M, Ruf-Leuschner M. Prenatal screening for psychosocial risk-population in Peru using KINDEX interview. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2016) 16:13. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0799-X
19. Rasmussen B, Hendrieckx C, Clarke B, Botti M, Dunning T, Jenkins A, et al. Psychosocial issues of women with type 1 diabetes transitioning to motherhood: a structured literature review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2013) 13:218. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-218
20. Woods S, Melville J, Guo Y, Fan M, Gavin A. Psychosocial stress during pregnancy. Am. J Obstetr Gynecol. (2010) 202:.e1–7.
21. Abeysena C, Jayawardana P, de A Senevirtne R. Effect of psychosocial stress on maternal complications during pregnancy: a cohort study. Int J Collaborat Res Int Med Public Health. (2010) 2:436–48.
22. Bunevicius R, Kusminskas L, Bunevicius A, Nadisauskiene R, Jureniene K, Pop V. Psychosocial risk factors for depression during pregnancy. Acta Obstetr Gynecol Scand. (2009) 88:599–605. doi: 10.1080/00016340902846049
23. Joseph J, El-Mohandes A, Kiely M, El-Khorazaty M, Gantz M, Johnson A, et al. Reducing psychosocial and behavioural pregnancy risk factors: results of a ran- domized clinical trial among high-risk pregnant women. Am J Public Health. (2009) 99:1053–61.
24. Paarlbeg K, vingerhoets A, Passchier J, Dekker G, Heinen A, van Geijn H. Psychosocial predictors of low birthweight: a prospective study. J Psychos Obstetr Gynecol. (2009) 17:93–102.
25. Carroll J, Reid A, Biringer A, Midmer D, Glazier R, Wilson L, et al. Effectiveness of the antenatal psychosocial health assessment (ALPHA) forms in detecting psychosocial concerns: a randomized control trial. Can Med Assoc J. (2005) 173:345.
26. Kusuma Naik M, Vedavathy N, Renuka R. Paraneetha. Pregnancy outcome in working women with work place stress. Int J Reproduct Contracep Obstetr Gynecol. (2017) 6:2891–6. doi: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20172631
27. Traisrisilp K, Jaiprom J, Luewan S, Tongsong T. Pregnancy outcomes among mothers aged 15 years or less. J Obstetr Gynecol Res. (2015) 41:1726–31. doi: 10.11111/jog.12789
28. Athukorala C, Rumbold A, Willson K, Crowther C. The risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women who are overweight or obese. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2010) 17:56. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-10-56
29. MacCabe J, Martinsson L, Lichtenstein P, Nilsson E, Cnattingius S, Murray R, et al. Adverse pregnancy outcomes in mothers with affective psychosis. Wiley Online Lib Bipolar Disord. (2007) 9:305–9.
30. Bai J, Wong F, Bauman A, Mohsin M. Parity and pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. (2002) 186:274–8. doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.119639
31. Kapaya H, Mercer E, Boffey F, Jones G, Mitchell C, Anumba D. Deprivation and poor psychosocial support are key determinants of late antenatal presentation 126 and poor fetal outcomes – a combined retrospective and prospective study. BMC Childbirth. (2015) 15:309. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0753-3
32. Hamdan A, Tamim H. Psychosocial risk and protective factors for postpartum depression in the United Arab Emirates. J Arch Women’s Ment Health. (2011) 14:125–33. doi: 10.1007/s00737-010-0189-8
33. Hobel C, Culhane J. Role of Psychosocial and nutri- tional stress on poor pregnancy outcome. J Nutr. (2003) 133:1701717S. doi: 10.1093/jn/133.5.1709S
34. Hagoel L, Van-Raalte R, Kalekin-Fishman D, Shifroni G, Epstein L, Sorokin Y. Psychosocial and medical factors in pregnancy out- come: a case study of Israeli women. J Soc Sci Med. (1995) 40:567–71. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)E0099-E
35. Aurelius G, Rådestad A, Nylander I, Zetterström R. Psychosocial factors and pregnancy outcome: part two of a prospective longitudinal study of children. Scand J Public Health. (1987) 15:79–85. doi: 10.1177/140349488701500205
36. Wilson L, Reid A, Midmer D, Biringer A, Carroll J, Stewart D. Antenatal psychosocial risk factors associated with adverse postpartum family outcomes. CMA J. (1996) 154:785–99.
38. Suresh K. Nursing research and statistics. 2nd ed. (Vol. 38). Amsterdam: Elsevier Publication (2016). p. 101–7.
39. Sharma K. Nursing research and statistics. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publication (2018). p. 43–4.
40. Polit D, Beck C. Nursing research – Generating and assessing evidence for nursing pactice. 9th ed. New Delhi: Wolters Kluwer India Pvt Ltd (2015).