...
首页> 外文期刊>Sexual & reproductive healthcare: official journal of the Swedish Association of Midwives >Mothers' satisfaction with group antenatal care versus individual antenatal care - A clinical trial
【24h】

Mothers' satisfaction with group antenatal care versus individual antenatal care - A clinical trial

机译:母亲对集体产前护理与个人产前护理的满意度-临床试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare women's satisfaction with group based antenatal care and standard care. Design: A randomised control trial where midwives were randomized to perform either GBAC or standard care. Women were invited to evaluate the two models of care. Data was collected by two questionnaires, in early pregnancy and six months after birth. Crude and adjusted odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval were calculated by model of care. Settings: Twelve antenatal clinics in Sweden between September 2008 and December 2010. Participants: Women in various part of Sweden (n=700). Findings: In total, 8:16 variables in GBAC versus 9:16 in standard care were reported as deficient. Women in GBAC reported significantly less deficiencies with information about labour/birth OR 0.16 (0.10-0.27), breastfeeding OR 0.58 (0.37-0.90) and time following birth OR 0.61 (0.40-0.94). Engagement from the midwives OR 0.44 (0.25-0.78) and being taken seriously OR 0.55 (0.31-0.98) were also found to be less deficient. Women in GBAC reported the highest level of deficiency with information about pregnancy OR 3.45 (2.03-5.85) but reported less deficiency with time to plan the birth OR 0.61 (0.39-0.96). In addition, women in GBAC more satisfied with care in supporting contact with other parents OR 3.86 (2.30-6.46) and felt more support to initiate breastfeeding OR 1.75 (1.02-2.88). Conclusions: Women in both models of care considered the care as deficient in more than half of all areas. Variables that differed between the two models favoured group based antenatal care.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是比较妇女对基于团体的产前护理和标准护理的满意度。设计:一项随机对照试验,其中,助产士被随机分配以进行GBAC或标准护理。邀请妇女评估这两种护理模式。在怀孕初期和出生后六个月通过两份问卷收集数据。通过护理模型计算出置信区间为95%的粗略和调整后的优势比。地点:2008年9月至2010年12月,在瑞典设有12个产前诊所。参加者:瑞典不同地区的妇女(n = 700)。调查结果:总的来说,GBAC中的8:16变量与标准护理中的9:16相比被报告为缺陷。 GBAC中的妇女报告的关于劳动/出生的缺陷明显减少,OR为0.16(0.10-0.27),母乳喂养OR 0.58(0.37-0.90)和分娩后时间为OR 0.61(0.40-0.94)。还发现,助产士的参与度OR为0.44(0.25-0.78)并被认真对待,OR为0.55(0.31-0.98)也较少。 GBAC中的妇女报告的妊娠缺陷水平最高,为3.45(2.03-5.85),但随着计划生育时间的减少,妊娠缺陷的比例为0.61(0.39-0.96)。另外,GBAC中的妇女对支持与其他父母的接触也更加满意,即OR 3.86(2.30-6.46),并且感到更多的支持开始母乳喂养或1.75(1.02-2.88)。结论:两种护理模式中的女性都认为在所有地区的一半以上缺乏护理。两种模型之间存在差异的变量支持基于组的产前护理。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号