Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 286, Issue 1, pp 63–70 | Cite as

Effect of educational software on self-efficacy of pregnant women to cope with labor: a randomized controlled trial

  • Seyedeh Fatemeh Vasegh RahimparvarEmail author
  • Mazloomeh Hamzehkhani
  • Mehrnaz Geranmayeh
  • Reza Rahimi
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of educational software on self-efficacy of Iranian pregnant women to cope with labor.

Methods

This study was a randomized controlled trial which was carried out on 150 Iranian nulliparous pregnant women randomly assigned to two groups of 75 women each. The control group routinely did not receive any kind of childbirth education and the intervention group only received the childbirth educational software for 6–8 weeks. In order to determine self-efficacy, the Childbirth Self Efficacy Questionnaire (CBSEI) was used which measures the outcome expectancy and the self-efficacy expectancy of the first and second stages of labor separately. This questionnaire was completed at 28–32-week gestation as a pre-test and at 36–38 weeks as a post-test by the participants. Data were analyzed using Chi-square, Mann–Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests.

Results

After the intervention, the median and mean of CBSEI scores for the intervention and the control groups were 607, 604/20 ± 16/630 and 394, 392/51 ± 16/758, respectively. There was a statistical difference between the two groups (p = 0.001). Also, statistically significant differences existed in the median of outcome expectancy and self-efficacy expectancy after intervention in both stages of labor between the two groups (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The educational software program significantly increased self-efficacy of Iranian pregnant women to cope with labor. Despite lack of educational childbirth classes in Iran, the use of this method is recommended.

However, to find whether this technique can be substituted for the educational classes, further studies are needed.

Keywords

Education Software Self-efficacy Cope with labor Pregnancy 

References

  1. 1.
    Bandura A (2004) Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav 31(2):143–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sieber S, Germann N, Barbir A (2006) Emotional well-being and predictors of birth-anxiety, self-efficacy, and psychosocial adaptation in healthy pregnant women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85(10):1200–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sol B, vander Graaf Y, vander Bijl J (2008) The role of self-efficacy in vascular risk factor management: a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 71(2):191–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khorsandi M, Ghofranipour F, Faghihzadeh S et al (2008) Iranian version of childbirth self-efficacy inventory. J Clin Nurs 17(21):2846–2855PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khorsandi M, Ghofranipour F, Faghihzadeh S et al (2009) Effects of childbirth education classes on self-efficacy of nulliparous women in coping with labour pain BioInfoBank Institute. http//lib.Bioinfo.pl/bild:965
  7. 7.
    Ip WY, Tang Catherine SK, Goggins William B (2009) An educational intervention to improve women’s ability to cope with childbirth. J Clin Nurs 18:2125–2135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Escott D, Slade P, Spiby H (2009) Preparation for pain management during childbirth: the psychological aspects of coping strategy development in antenatal education. Clin Psychol Rev 29(7):617–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drummond J, Rickwood D (1997) Childbirth confidence: validating the childbirth self-efficacy inventory (CBSEI) in an Australian sample. J Adv Nurs 26(3):613–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Angeja AE, Washington AE, Vargas JE et al (2006) Chilean women’s preference regarding mode of delivery: which do they prefer and why? BJOG 113(11):1253–1258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wiklund I, Edman G, Ryding E, Andolf E (2008) Expectation and experiences of childbirth in primiparae with caesarean section. BJOG 115(3):324–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stjernholm YV, Petersson K, Eneroth E (2010) Changed indications for cesarean sections. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89:49–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Melender HL (2002) Experiences of fears associated with pregnancy and childbirth: a study of 329 pregnant women. Birth 29:101–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leeman LM, Plante LA (2006) Patient-choice vaginal delivery. Ann Fam Med 4:265–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saisto T, Toivanen R, Salmela-Aro K, Halmesmaki E (2006) Therapeutic group psychoeducation and relaxation in treating fear of childbirth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85(11):1315–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fahami F, Masoufar S, Davazdahemami Sh (2007) The effect of Lamaze practices on the outcome of pregnancy and labour in primipara women. Iran J Nurs midwifery Res summer 12(3):111–114Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mohammaditabar Sh, Kiani A, Heidari M (2009) The survey on tendencies of primiparous women for selecting the mode of delivery. J Babol Univ Med Sci 11(3):54–59 (in Persian)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Negahban T, Ansari A (2009) Does fear of childbirth predict emergency cesarean section in primiparous women? J Fac Nurs Midwifery 14(3–4):73–81 (in Persian)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alimohamadian M, Shariat M, Mahmoodi M (2003) The influence of maternal request on the elective cesarean section rate in maternity hospitals in Tehran, Iran. Payesh J Iran Inst Health Sci Res 2(2):133–139Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farin Tatari P, Afshari P, Haghighi MH (2003) Survey of the factors affecting cesarean section in Mashhad hospitals, Iran. J Ilam Univ Med Sci 12(42–43):25–31 (in Persian)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taavoni S, Haghani H, Mirzendedel S (2007) Vaginal delivery and cesarean section: comparative study of personal characteristics. Middle East J Nurs 1(1):1Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Azizi M, Salari P (2009) C-section in request: an ethical approach. J Med Ethics Hist 2(2):55–66 (in persian). http://journals.tums.ac.ir/search.asp Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Souza JP (2010) Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004–2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med 8(1):71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ahmad-Nia S, Delavar B, Eini-Zinab H, Kazemipour S, Mehryar AH, Naghavi M (2009) Caesarean section in the Islamic Republic of Iran: prevalence and some sociodemographic correlates. East Mediter Health J 15:1389–1398Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Badakhsh MH et al (2012) Rise in cesarean section rate over a 30-year period in a public hospital in Tehran, Iran. Arch Iran Med 15(1):4–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fernando AJosé, Angega AC, Washington AE, Vargas JE, Gomes R, Rojas, Caughey AB (2006) Chilean women’s preference regarding mode of delivery which do they prefer and why? BJOG 113(11):1253–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee L, Holroyd E (2009) Evaluating the effect of childbirth education class: a mixed-method study. Int Nurs Rev 56(3):361–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wong D, Perry S, Hockenberry J (2002) Maternal child nursing care, 2nd edn. Mosby, St.LouisGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Keulers B, Welters C, Spauwen P (2007) Can face-to-face patient education be replaced by computer-based patient education? A randomised trial patient. Educ Couns 67(1/2):176–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pinto A, Selvaggi S, Sicignano G et al (2008) E-learning tools for education: regulatory aspects, current applications in radiology and future prospects. La Radiol Medica 113(1):144–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Taylor JH (2003) Facilitating distance learning in nurse education. Nurs Educ Pract 3(1):23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rokou FP, Rokou E, Rokos Y (2004) Modeling web-based education system. Process desion teaching model. Educ Techn Soc 7(1):42–50Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pinto A, Selvaggi S, Sicignano G (2008) E-learning tools for education: regulatory aspects, current applications in radiology and future prospects. La Radiol Medica 113(1):144–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shomaker TS, Ricks DJ, Hale DC (2002) A prospective, randomized controlled study of computer-assisted learning in parasitology. Acad Med 77(5):446–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sitzmann T, Kraiger K, Stewart D, Wisher R (2006) The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: a mata-analysis. Pers Psychol 59(3):623–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hausenblas H, Brewer B, Van Raalte J et al (2008) Development and evaluation of a multimedia CD-ROM for exercise during pregnancy and postpartum’. Patient Educ Couns 70(2):215–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moayed Mohseni S, Mohamadi KH (2006) The predictive of cesarean section trend base on present statistic document. Daneshvar 66(14):59–62Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ip W, Chan D, Chien W (2005) Chinese version of the childbirth selfefficacy inventory. J Adv Nurs 51(6):625–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lowe NK (2000) Self-efficacy for labor and childbirth fears in nulliparous pregnant women. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 21:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Casazza K, Ciccazzo M (2007) The method of delivery of nutrition and physical activity information may play a role in eliciting behavior changes in adolescents. Eat Behav 8(1):73–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kuo S, Chen Y, Lin K et al (2009) Evaluating the effects of an Internet education programme on newborn care in Taiwan. J Clin Nurs 18(11):1592–1601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ministry of health (2010) Medical and education, midwife duties (in Persian)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    TorkZahrani Shahnaz (2008) Commentary: childbirth education in Iran. J Perinat Educ 17(3):51–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lowe NK (1993) Maternal confidence for labour: development of the childbirth self-efficacy inventory. Res Nurs Health 16:141–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wuitchik M, Hesson K, Bakal D (1990) Perinatal predictors of pain and distress during labor. Birth 17:186–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Howharn C (2008) Effects of childbirth preparation classes on selfefficacy in coping with labor pain in Thai primiparas. South Online J Nurs Res 8(2):1–12Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Badakhsh MH et al (2012) Rise in cesarean section rate over a 30-year period in a public hospital in Tehran, Iran. Arch Iran Med 15(1):4–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jeffries PR (2001) Computer versus lecture: a comparison of two methods of teaching oral medication administration in a nursing skills laboratory. J Nurs Educ 40(7):323–329PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ingadóttir E, Thome M (2006) Evaluation of a web-based course for community nurses on postpartum emotional distress. Scand J Caring Sci 20(1):86–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Meizen H, Su-Chen K, Melissa A et al (2007) Evaluating effects of a prenatal web-based breastfeeding education programme in Taiwan. J Clin Nurs 16(8):1571–1579Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Beranova E, Sykes C (2007) A systematic review of computer-based softwares for educating patients with coronary heart disease. Patient Educ Couns 66(1):21–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyedeh Fatemeh Vasegh Rahimparvar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mazloomeh Hamzehkhani
    • 1
  • Mehrnaz Geranmayeh
    • 1
  • Reza Rahimi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Midwifery, Nursing and Midwifery FacultyTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations