ArticleElectronic physician2018
Comparative study of teaching natural delivery benefits and optimism training on mothers' attitude and intention to select a type of delivery: an educational experiment.
Article in Electronic physician, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How the Mode of Delivery Is Influenced by Patient's Opinions and Risk-Informed Consent in Women with a History of Caesarean Section? Is Vaginal Delivery a Real Option after Caesarean Section?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Psychoeducation for psychological issues and birth preparedness in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.AJOG global reports · 2022Article
- Construction of a prediction model and a prevention control system for cesarean section rate based on the Robson classification system.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite advantages of normal vaginal delivery (NVD) and disadvantages of caesarean section (C-section) and the increasing C-section rate Iran, appropriate training is essential in reducing this trend. Optimism is one of the important psychological determinants which is a combination of positive desire and attitude in people.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the effects of optimism training as well as training the benefits of natural childbirth on attitude and intentions to choose the type of delivery.
methodsIn this experimental study, 96 primiparous women referring to health centers in Mashhad (Iran) in 2014 with pregnancy duration of 30 to 34 weeks and without indication of C-section, were selected and randomly divided into two training groups and one control group. Optimism training was provided during six 60-minute sessions, whereas training the benefits of NVD was conducted in four 60-minute sessions. Pre-test and post-test were performed using valid and reliable questionnaires, researcher-made questionnaire, attitude-measuring questions on NVD and C-section, and optimism-measuring standard questionnaires (LOT-R). Data were analyzed by IBM-SPSS version 22, using Kruskal-Wallis, Chi square, paired-samples t-test, Independent-samples t-test, Man-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultThere was a significant difference between the mean scores of attitudes towards natural delivery in the group that received both optimism and natural delivery advantages trainings compared with the group receiving only the latter (p>0.001). Frequency of intentions to choose the type of delivery after optimism and natural delivery advantages trainings compared with training the benefits of natural childbirth only, did not show a significant difference (p=0.135).
conclusionOptimism training combined with training the benefits of natural childbirth is more effective in creating positive attitude towards natural delivery in comparison with only the NVD advantages education, but it has no effect on selecting the type of delivery. Probably one of the most important reasons of failure of achieving a proper result is the low sample size.
trial registrationThe trial was registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (http://www.irct.ir) with the Irct ID: IRCT2015063022995N1.
fundingThis trial is funded by Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in collaboration with the Evidence-Based Research Center (Ref: research/930321/1/172).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.