Husbands' Perception of Environmental Characteristics During Participation in Physiologic Delivery
,
Abstract
Objective: Nowadays, the presence of husbands during the childbirth process is regarded as an important factor that can contribute to lower rate of the C-section, better success of physiologic delivery and higher satisfaction in childbirth experience. Considering the special sociocultural characteristics of the Iranian society, this method requires accurate assessment to be practical and effective. The aim of this research was finding out how husbands perceive the environmental and physical characteristics of delivery spaces via studying these physical characteristics, exploring them through husbands’ perception and finally discovering the mechanism behind formation of this perception.
Materials and methods: First, the conceptual model of the study was developed after a review of the physiologic childbirth literature. Then, a research questionnaire was designed and distributed among
120 husbands who recently had the experience of accompanying their wives during physiologic childbirth.
Results: The results showed that light, color and temperature play a significant role in husbands’ perception of delivery spaces under the special psychological conditions and stress that they experience during the childbirth. Designer should pay due attention to these three factors when designing the structure of childbirth spaces.
Conclusion: Promoting the environmental quality of the physiologic delivery room based on husband's perception can help mothers and medical staff better manage childbirth pain which is an integral part of natural childbirths.
1. Wertz RW, Wertz DC. Lying-In, A History of Childbirth in America. New York, Shocken Books, 1977.
2. Leavitt J W. Lying-In: A History of Childbirth in America. By Richard W. Wertz and Dorothy C. Wertz (New York: The Free Press, 1977). Journal of Social History.1979;12(3),484–486. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsh/12.3.484
3. Zakerihamidi M, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Merghati Khoei E. Vaginal Delivery vs. Cesarean Section: A Focused Ethnographic Study of Women's Perceptions in The North of Iran. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2015;3(1):39-50.
4. Garel M, Lelong N, Kaminski M. Follow-up study of psychological consequences of caesarean childbirth. Early Hum Dev. 1988;16(2-3):271-82.
5. Smith J.A.. The Family Birthplace: Planning and Designing Today's Obstetric Facilities. Chicago, Illinois; American Hospital Publishing Inc., 1995.
6. Bondas-Salonen T. How Women Experience the Presence of their Partners at the Births of their Babies. Qualitative Health Research. 1998;8(6):784-800.
7. Kainz G, Eliasson M, von Post I. The child's father, an important person for the mother's well-being during the childbirth: a hermeneutic study. Health Care Women Int. 2010;31(7):621-35.
8. Lewis S, Lee A, Simkhada P. The role of husbands in maternal health and safe childbirth in rural Nepal: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth.
2015;15:162.
9. Brunson J. Confronting maternal mortality, controlling birth in Nepal: the gendered politics of receiving biomedical care at birth. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(10):1719-27.
10. Sapkota S, Kobayashi T, Kakehashi M, Baral G, Yoshida I. In the Nepalese context, can a husband's attendance during childbirth help his wife feel more in control of labour? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12:49.
11. Salehi A, Fahami F, Beigi M. The effect of presence of trained husbands beside their wives during childbirth on women's anxiety. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2016;21(6):611-615.
12. Herman R, Hodek B, Ivicević-Bakulić T, Kosec V, Kraljević Z, Fures R. Ucinak nazocnosti muza pri porodu [The effect of the presence of the husband during childbirth]. Lijec Vjesn. 1997;119(8-9):231-2.
13. Gungor I, Beji NK. Effects of fathers' attendance to labor and delivery on the experience of childbirth in Turkey. West J Nurs Res. 2007;29(2):213-31.
14. Fathi Najafi T, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Ebrahimipour H. The best encouraging persons in labor: A content analysis of Iranian mothers' experiences of labor support. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0179702.
15. Block C R, Norr K L, Meyering S, Norr J L, Charles A G. Husband Gatekeeping in Childbirth. Family Relations.1981; 30(2, 197-204.
16. Shahshahan Z, Mehrabian F, Mashoori S. Effect of the presence of support person and routine intervention for women during childbirth in Isfahan, Iran: A randomized controlled trial. Adv Biomed Res. 2014;3:155.
17. Somers-Smith MJ. A place for the partner? Expectations and experiences of support during childbirth. Midwifery. 1999;15(2):101-8.
18. Price S, Noseworthy J, Thornton J. Women's experience with social presence during childbirth. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2007;32(3):184-91.
19. Wang E. Requests for cesarean deliveries: The politics of labor pain and pain relief in Shanghai, China. Soc Sci Med. 2017 Jan;173:1-8.
20. Emelonye AU, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K, Pitkäaho T, Aregbesola A. Midwives perceptions of partner presence in childbirth pain alleviation in Nigeria hospitals. Midwifery. 2017;48:39-45.
21. Lestari P, Mufdlilah, Ernawati D. Husband’s role in assistance of laboring process: systematic literature review. 1st International Respati Health Conference.2019;proceeding,142-51. (Available at: https://prosiding.respati.ac.id/index.php/PIC/article/viewFile/69/64) (Accessed August 2023).
22. Nyondo-Mipando AL, Chimwaza AF, Muula AS. "He does not have to wait under a tree": perceptions of men, women and health care workers on male partner involvement in prevention of mother to child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus services in Malawi. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):187.
23. Dlugosz S. Fathers at birth : women's experiences of their partner's presence during childbirth. Joondalup, Australia; Thesis, Edith Cowan University, 2013. Available at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/106 (accessed August 2023).
24. Kashaija DK, Mselle LT, Mkoka DA. Husbands' experience and perception of supporting their wives during childbirth in Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):85.
25. Ahmadi L, Karami S, Faghihzadeh S, Jafari E, Dabiri Oskoei A, Kharaghani R. Effect of couples counseling based on the problem-solving approach on the fear of delivery, self-efficacy, and choice of delivery mode in the primigravid women requesting elective cesarean section. Preventive Care in Nursimg and Midwifery Journal. 2018;7(4):32–40.
26. Latifnejad-Roudsari R, Zakerihamidi M, Merghati-Khoei E, Kazemnejad A. Cultural perceptions and preferences of Iranian women regarding cesarean delivery. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2014;19(7 Suppl 1):S28-36.
27. Jae Jang M, Sook Park K. Effect of Family-Participated Delivery in a Labor Delivery Room on the Childbirth of Primiparas. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. (2002) ;8(3):371-379.
28. Shahshahan Z, Heshmati B, Akbari M, Sabet F. Caesarean section in Iran. Lancet. 2016;388(10039):29–30.
29. Rashidian A, Moradi G, Takian A, Sakha MA, Salavati S, Faraji O, et al. Effects of the Health Transformation Plan on caesarean section rate in the Islamic Republic of Iran: an interrupted time series. East Mediterr Health J. 2019;25(4):254-261.
30. Newburn, M., Singh, D. Creating a Better Birth Environment Women’s views about the design and facilities in maternity units: a national survey. Oldham Terrace London W3 6NH ;The National Childbirth Trust Alexandra House, 2003.
31. Gedey S. Abor-delivery-recovery room design that facilitates non-phar- macological reduction of labor pain: A model LDR room plan and recommended best practices. Perkins+Will research journal. 2014. http://research.perkinswill.com/articles/labor-delivery-recovery-room-design-that-facilitates-non-pharmacological-reduction-of-labor-pain-a-model-ldr-room-plan-and-recommended-best-practices/
32. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148343.
33. Eide KT, Morken N, Bærøe K. Maternal reasons for requesting planned cesarean section in Norway: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:102.
34. Ryding EL, Lukasse M, Kristjansdottir H, Steingrimsdottir T, Schei B; Bidens study group. Pregnant women's preference for cesarean section and subsequent mode of birth - a six-country cohort study.
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;37(3):75-83.
35. Coates D, Thirukumar P, Spear V, Brown G, Henry A. What are women's mode of birth preferences and why? A systematic scoping review. Women Birth. 2020;33(4):323-333.
36. Lothian JA. Why natural childbirth? J Perinat Educ. 2000;9(4):44-6.
2. Leavitt J W. Lying-In: A History of Childbirth in America. By Richard W. Wertz and Dorothy C. Wertz (New York: The Free Press, 1977). Journal of Social History.1979;12(3),484–486. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsh/12.3.484
3. Zakerihamidi M, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Merghati Khoei E. Vaginal Delivery vs. Cesarean Section: A Focused Ethnographic Study of Women's Perceptions in The North of Iran. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2015;3(1):39-50.
4. Garel M, Lelong N, Kaminski M. Follow-up study of psychological consequences of caesarean childbirth. Early Hum Dev. 1988;16(2-3):271-82.
5. Smith J.A.. The Family Birthplace: Planning and Designing Today's Obstetric Facilities. Chicago, Illinois; American Hospital Publishing Inc., 1995.
6. Bondas-Salonen T. How Women Experience the Presence of their Partners at the Births of their Babies. Qualitative Health Research. 1998;8(6):784-800.
7. Kainz G, Eliasson M, von Post I. The child's father, an important person for the mother's well-being during the childbirth: a hermeneutic study. Health Care Women Int. 2010;31(7):621-35.
8. Lewis S, Lee A, Simkhada P. The role of husbands in maternal health and safe childbirth in rural Nepal: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth.
2015;15:162.
9. Brunson J. Confronting maternal mortality, controlling birth in Nepal: the gendered politics of receiving biomedical care at birth. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(10):1719-27.
10. Sapkota S, Kobayashi T, Kakehashi M, Baral G, Yoshida I. In the Nepalese context, can a husband's attendance during childbirth help his wife feel more in control of labour? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12:49.
11. Salehi A, Fahami F, Beigi M. The effect of presence of trained husbands beside their wives during childbirth on women's anxiety. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2016;21(6):611-615.
12. Herman R, Hodek B, Ivicević-Bakulić T, Kosec V, Kraljević Z, Fures R. Ucinak nazocnosti muza pri porodu [The effect of the presence of the husband during childbirth]. Lijec Vjesn. 1997;119(8-9):231-2.
13. Gungor I, Beji NK. Effects of fathers' attendance to labor and delivery on the experience of childbirth in Turkey. West J Nurs Res. 2007;29(2):213-31.
14. Fathi Najafi T, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Ebrahimipour H. The best encouraging persons in labor: A content analysis of Iranian mothers' experiences of labor support. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0179702.
15. Block C R, Norr K L, Meyering S, Norr J L, Charles A G. Husband Gatekeeping in Childbirth. Family Relations.1981; 30(2, 197-204.
16. Shahshahan Z, Mehrabian F, Mashoori S. Effect of the presence of support person and routine intervention for women during childbirth in Isfahan, Iran: A randomized controlled trial. Adv Biomed Res. 2014;3:155.
17. Somers-Smith MJ. A place for the partner? Expectations and experiences of support during childbirth. Midwifery. 1999;15(2):101-8.
18. Price S, Noseworthy J, Thornton J. Women's experience with social presence during childbirth. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2007;32(3):184-91.
19. Wang E. Requests for cesarean deliveries: The politics of labor pain and pain relief in Shanghai, China. Soc Sci Med. 2017 Jan;173:1-8.
20. Emelonye AU, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K, Pitkäaho T, Aregbesola A. Midwives perceptions of partner presence in childbirth pain alleviation in Nigeria hospitals. Midwifery. 2017;48:39-45.
21. Lestari P, Mufdlilah, Ernawati D. Husband’s role in assistance of laboring process: systematic literature review. 1st International Respati Health Conference.2019;proceeding,142-51. (Available at: https://prosiding.respati.ac.id/index.php/PIC/article/viewFile/69/64) (Accessed August 2023).
22. Nyondo-Mipando AL, Chimwaza AF, Muula AS. "He does not have to wait under a tree": perceptions of men, women and health care workers on male partner involvement in prevention of mother to child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus services in Malawi. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):187.
23. Dlugosz S. Fathers at birth : women's experiences of their partner's presence during childbirth. Joondalup, Australia; Thesis, Edith Cowan University, 2013. Available at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/106 (accessed August 2023).
24. Kashaija DK, Mselle LT, Mkoka DA. Husbands' experience and perception of supporting their wives during childbirth in Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):85.
25. Ahmadi L, Karami S, Faghihzadeh S, Jafari E, Dabiri Oskoei A, Kharaghani R. Effect of couples counseling based on the problem-solving approach on the fear of delivery, self-efficacy, and choice of delivery mode in the primigravid women requesting elective cesarean section. Preventive Care in Nursimg and Midwifery Journal. 2018;7(4):32–40.
26. Latifnejad-Roudsari R, Zakerihamidi M, Merghati-Khoei E, Kazemnejad A. Cultural perceptions and preferences of Iranian women regarding cesarean delivery. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2014;19(7 Suppl 1):S28-36.
27. Jae Jang M, Sook Park K. Effect of Family-Participated Delivery in a Labor Delivery Room on the Childbirth of Primiparas. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. (2002) ;8(3):371-379.
28. Shahshahan Z, Heshmati B, Akbari M, Sabet F. Caesarean section in Iran. Lancet. 2016;388(10039):29–30.
29. Rashidian A, Moradi G, Takian A, Sakha MA, Salavati S, Faraji O, et al. Effects of the Health Transformation Plan on caesarean section rate in the Islamic Republic of Iran: an interrupted time series. East Mediterr Health J. 2019;25(4):254-261.
30. Newburn, M., Singh, D. Creating a Better Birth Environment Women’s views about the design and facilities in maternity units: a national survey. Oldham Terrace London W3 6NH ;The National Childbirth Trust Alexandra House, 2003.
31. Gedey S. Abor-delivery-recovery room design that facilitates non-phar- macological reduction of labor pain: A model LDR room plan and recommended best practices. Perkins+Will research journal. 2014. http://research.perkinswill.com/articles/labor-delivery-recovery-room-design-that-facilitates-non-pharmacological-reduction-of-labor-pain-a-model-ldr-room-plan-and-recommended-best-practices/
32. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148343.
33. Eide KT, Morken N, Bærøe K. Maternal reasons for requesting planned cesarean section in Norway: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:102.
34. Ryding EL, Lukasse M, Kristjansdottir H, Steingrimsdottir T, Schei B; Bidens study group. Pregnant women's preference for cesarean section and subsequent mode of birth - a six-country cohort study.
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;37(3):75-83.
35. Coates D, Thirukumar P, Spear V, Brown G, Henry A. What are women's mode of birth preferences and why? A systematic scoping review. Women Birth. 2020;33(4):323-333.
36. Lothian JA. Why natural childbirth? J Perinat Educ. 2000;9(4):44-6.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 17, No 3 (September 2023) | |
| Section | Original Articles | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v17i3.13538 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Physiologic Delivery Husband Environmental Characteristics Perception Mechanism of Perception Formation | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Deljoo Ghamgosar F, Yazdanfar SA, Nikkhah E, Yari H, Honarbakhsh M. Husbands’ Perception of Environmental Characteristics During Participation in Physiologic Delivery. J Family Reprod Health. 2023;17(3):151-164.
