Can prenatal online education improve pregnancy outcomes compared to classic education?

Kemal Din, zlem Deveci
{"title":"Can prenatal online education improve pregnancy outcomes compared to classic education?","authors":"Kemal Din, zlem Deveci","doi":"10.5455/annalsmedres.2022.12.379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: Cesarean section rates have increased, and although various measures such as antenatal education programs have been introduced to correct this, these could not be performed face-to-face due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and were largely carried out online. This study was planned to determine the effect on the rate of cesarean deliveries and pregnancy outcomes of classic education received in the antenatal period and its online replacement in such and similar extraordinary situations. Material and Method: The research was designed as a retrospective, cohort study. Fifty women undergoing childbirth in our hospital and who received online antenatal education (Group 1), 101 women who received classic education (Group 2), and 77 women receiving no education (Group 3) took part in the study. Patient data were retrieved from the hospital information system and patient records. Results: This study involved 228 pregnant women. Fifty pregnant women (22%) receiving antenatal online education were assigned to Group 1, 101 women (44%) receiving classic face-to-face education to Group 2, and 77 women (34%) receiving no education to Group 3. Forty percent of Group 1, given online education, and 62.4% of Group 2, given classic education, were able to give birth via the normal vaginal route, and the difference was statistically significant (0.001). Cesarean delivery rates were significantly higher in Group 1 (60%) than in Group 2 (37.6%) (0.001). Statistically similar results were determined in all three groups in terms of birth weight, birth length, and low birth weight. No significant difference was also observed between the three groups in terms of premature birth (<37 weeks) (p=0.67). Conclusion: Online antenatal education does not reduce cesarean delivery rates compared to classic education. However, neonatal outcomes are similar.","PeriodicalId":8248,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Medical Research","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5455/annalsmedres.2022.12.379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Cesarean section rates have increased, and although various measures such as antenatal education programs have been introduced to correct this, these could not be performed face-to-face due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and were largely carried out online. This study was planned to determine the effect on the rate of cesarean deliveries and pregnancy outcomes of classic education received in the antenatal period and its online replacement in such and similar extraordinary situations. Material and Method: The research was designed as a retrospective, cohort study. Fifty women undergoing childbirth in our hospital and who received online antenatal education (Group 1), 101 women who received classic education (Group 2), and 77 women receiving no education (Group 3) took part in the study. Patient data were retrieved from the hospital information system and patient records. Results: This study involved 228 pregnant women. Fifty pregnant women (22%) receiving antenatal online education were assigned to Group 1, 101 women (44%) receiving classic face-to-face education to Group 2, and 77 women (34%) receiving no education to Group 3. Forty percent of Group 1, given online education, and 62.4% of Group 2, given classic education, were able to give birth via the normal vaginal route, and the difference was statistically significant (0.001). Cesarean delivery rates were significantly higher in Group 1 (60%) than in Group 2 (37.6%) (0.001). Statistically similar results were determined in all three groups in terms of birth weight, birth length, and low birth weight. No significant difference was also observed between the three groups in terms of premature birth (<37 weeks) (p=0.67). Conclusion: Online antenatal education does not reduce cesarean delivery rates compared to classic education. However, neonatal outcomes are similar.
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
与传统教育相比,产前在线教育能改善妊娠结局吗?
目的:剖宫产率有所上升,尽管采取了产前教育计划等各种措施来纠正这一现象,但由于COVID-19大流行,这些措施无法面对面进行,而主要是在线进行的。本研究旨在确定在此类和类似的特殊情况下,产前接受的经典教育及其在线替代对剖宫产率和妊娠结局的影响。材料与方法:本研究设计为回顾性队列研究。50名在我院分娩并接受在线产前教育的妇女(第一组),101名接受传统产前教育的妇女(第二组),77名未接受产前教育的妇女(第三组)参加了研究。患者数据从医院信息系统和患者记录中检索。结果:这项研究涉及228名孕妇。50名接受产前在线教育的孕妇(22%)被分配到第1组,101名接受传统面对面教育的孕妇(44%)被分配到第2组,77名未接受教育的孕妇(34%)被分配到第3组。接受网络教育的组1中有40%的妇女能够经正常阴道分娩,接受传统教育的组2中有62.4%的妇女能够经正常阴道分娩,差异有统计学意义(0.001)。组1的剖宫产率(60%)明显高于组2(37.6%)(0.001)。在出生体重、出生长度和低出生体重方面,三组的统计结果相似。在早产(<37周)方面,三组间也无显著差异(p=0.67)。结论:与传统教育相比,在线产前教育不能降低剖宫产率。然而,新生儿的结局是相似的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The correlation between vitamin D levels and inflammation, as well as the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), in people who are over the age of 60. Anxiety, Depression and Coping Styles in Mothers of Children with Cow's Milk Protein Allergy The relationship between spousal support and depression, anxiety, stress, and prenatal attachment in high-risk pregnancies Comparison of serum iron, hemoglobin, ferritin and crp levels in prostate cancer patients with a control group Running title: Serum iron levels in prostate cancer Investigation of Electrocardiogram and Inflammation Parameters in Patients with First Episode Mania
×
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