Evaluation of Childbirth Self-Efficacy in Pregnant Women with Variables: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ayse Deliktas Demirci, Merve Kochan, Kamile Kabukçuoğlu
{"title":"Evaluation of Childbirth Self-Efficacy in Pregnant Women with Variables: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Ayse Deliktas Demirci, Merve Kochan, Kamile Kabukçuoğlu","doi":"10.2174/2666082217666211210102459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nThe present study aims to examine childbirth self-efficacy levels with potential moderating variables. \n\n\n\n\nThe systematic searches were conducted in nine databases in July 2019. The PRISMA checklist was used. The quality of studies was evaluated by two researchers. The random-effect model was used in the present meta-analysis. The heterogeneity tests and moderator analyses were performed. There were 18 eligible articles. \n\n\n\n\nResults indicated that childbirth self-efficacy levels do not change based on parity (Q=0.784, p=0.376 for efficacy expectancy, Q=0.190, p=0.663 for outcome expectancy). The between-study variance was not significant for subdimensions of CBSEI (Qb = 1.531, p = .216), which means no significant difference between OE and EE levels was found. The between-study variance was not significant for OE levels (Qb = 0.333, p = .847), which means no significant difference was found between Outcome-AL, Outcome-SS, and OE-16. The moderator analysis, including Efficacy-AL, Efficacy-SS, and EE-16 presented a higher pooled mean score for EE-16 (111.56; 95% CI = 98.66 to 124.46). However, the between-study variance was not significant for EE levels (Qb = 4.240, p = .120). Despite the moderator analysis, the finding of high heterogeneity suggests the need for further studies which examine the concept of childbirth self-efficacy with additional variables. \n\n\n\n\nThe study presents that childbirth self-efficacy levels do not change based on parity, stages of labor and subdimensions of CBSEI. Researchers need to examine the concept of childbirth self-efficacy with new variables for further clarify of concept. \n\n","PeriodicalId":36711,"journal":{"name":"Current Psychiatry Research and Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Psychiatry Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/2666082217666211210102459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The present study aims to examine childbirth self-efficacy levels with potential moderating variables. The systematic searches were conducted in nine databases in July 2019. The PRISMA checklist was used. The quality of studies was evaluated by two researchers. The random-effect model was used in the present meta-analysis. The heterogeneity tests and moderator analyses were performed. There were 18 eligible articles. Results indicated that childbirth self-efficacy levels do not change based on parity (Q=0.784, p=0.376 for efficacy expectancy, Q=0.190, p=0.663 for outcome expectancy). The between-study variance was not significant for subdimensions of CBSEI (Qb = 1.531, p = .216), which means no significant difference between OE and EE levels was found. The between-study variance was not significant for OE levels (Qb = 0.333, p = .847), which means no significant difference was found between Outcome-AL, Outcome-SS, and OE-16. The moderator analysis, including Efficacy-AL, Efficacy-SS, and EE-16 presented a higher pooled mean score for EE-16 (111.56; 95% CI = 98.66 to 124.46). However, the between-study variance was not significant for EE levels (Qb = 4.240, p = .120). Despite the moderator analysis, the finding of high heterogeneity suggests the need for further studies which examine the concept of childbirth self-efficacy with additional variables. The study presents that childbirth self-efficacy levels do not change based on parity, stages of labor and subdimensions of CBSEI. Researchers need to examine the concept of childbirth self-efficacy with new variables for further clarify of concept.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
孕妇分娩自我效能感的变量评价:系统回顾与meta分析
本研究旨在检验具有潜在调节变量的分娩自我效能水平。系统搜索于2019年7月在9个数据库中进行。使用PRISMA检查表。两名研究人员对研究质量进行了评估。本荟萃分析采用随机效应模型。进行了异质性测试和慢化剂分析。共有18篇符合条件的文章。结果表明,分娩自我效能水平不会因产次而改变(预期疗效Q=0.784,p=0.376,预期结果Q=0.190,p=0.663)。CBSEI亚维度的研究间方差不显著(Qb=1.531,p=.216),这意味着OE和EE水平之间没有发现显著差异。OE水平的研究间方差不显著(Qb=0.33,p=.847),这意味着结果AL、结果SS和OE-16之间没有发现显著差异。包括疗效AL、疗效SS和EE-16在内的调节因子分析显示,EE-16的合并平均分更高(111.56;95%CI=98.66至124.46)。然而,研究之间的EE水平方差并不显著(Qb=4.40,p=.120)。尽管进行了调节因子分析,高度异质性的发现表明,有必要进一步研究生育自我效能感的概念与其他变量。研究表明,分娩自我效能水平不会因性别、分娩阶段和CBSEI的子维度而改变。研究人员需要用新的变量来检验分娩自我效能感的概念,以进一步阐明这一概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Current Psychiatry Research and Reviews
Current Psychiatry Research and Reviews Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
期刊最新文献
Manifestation of Psychosis and Impairments of Executive Functions emphasize the Interaction of Psychological and Neurological Dysfunctions in People who use Methamphetamine Exploring the Link between Autistic Traits, Emotional Intelligence, and Self-efficacy in Understanding Social Anhedonia The Psychological Health and Professional Well-being of Operators Working with Forced Migrants in Italy: A Cross-sectional Epidemiological Study Leveraging Social Networks to Integrate Depression Treatment into Primary Health and Tuberculosis Care in Brazil. Relation Between Monocyte-to-lymphocyte Ratio and Depressive Symptoms in Patients with Non-severe Covid-19 Infection
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1