利用荷兰分娩恐惧量表识别分娩恐惧的妇女及其对咨询的附加价值。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2021-12-15 DOI:10.1080/0167482X.2021.2013797
I den Boer, Y M G A Hendrix, H Knoop, M G van Pampus
{"title":"利用荷兰分娩恐惧量表识别分娩恐惧的妇女及其对咨询的附加价值。","authors":"I den Boer, Y M G A Hendrix, H Knoop, M G van Pampus","doi":"10.1080/0167482X.2021.2013797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Determine whether the Fear of Birth Scale (FOBS) is a useful screening instrument for Fear of Childbirth (FoC) and examine the potential added value of screening by analyzing how often pregnant women discuss their FoC during consultation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional survey study included nulliparous pregnant women of all gestational ages, recruited <i>via</i> the internet, hospital and midwifery practices. The online questionnaires included the FOBS and Wijma Delivery Expectations Questionnaire version A (W-DEQ A). The latter was used as golden standard for assessing FoC (cutoff: ≥85).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 364 included women, 67 (18.4%) had FoC according to the W-DEQ A. Using the FOBS with a cutoff score of ≥49, the sensitivity was 82.1% and the specificity 81.1%, with 111 (30.5%) women identified as having FoC. Positive predictive value was 49.5% and negative predictive value 95.3%. Of the women with FoC (FOBS ≥49), 68 (61.3%) did not discuss FoC with their caregiver.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The FOBS is a useful screening instrument for FoC. A positive score must be followed by further assessment, either by discussing it during consultation or additional evaluation with the W-DEQ A. The majority of pregnant women with FoC do not discuss their fears, underscoring the need for screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":50072,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":"43 4","pages":"419-425"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying women with fear of childbirth with the Dutch Fear of Birth Scale and its added value for consultations.\",\"authors\":\"I den Boer, Y M G A Hendrix, H Knoop, M G van Pampus\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0167482X.2021.2013797\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Determine whether the Fear of Birth Scale (FOBS) is a useful screening instrument for Fear of Childbirth (FoC) and examine the potential added value of screening by analyzing how often pregnant women discuss their FoC during consultation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional survey study included nulliparous pregnant women of all gestational ages, recruited <i>via</i> the internet, hospital and midwifery practices. The online questionnaires included the FOBS and Wijma Delivery Expectations Questionnaire version A (W-DEQ A). The latter was used as golden standard for assessing FoC (cutoff: ≥85).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 364 included women, 67 (18.4%) had FoC according to the W-DEQ A. Using the FOBS with a cutoff score of ≥49, the sensitivity was 82.1% and the specificity 81.1%, with 111 (30.5%) women identified as having FoC. Positive predictive value was 49.5% and negative predictive value 95.3%. Of the women with FoC (FOBS ≥49), 68 (61.3%) did not discuss FoC with their caregiver.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The FOBS is a useful screening instrument for FoC. A positive score must be followed by further assessment, either by discussing it during consultation or additional evaluation with the W-DEQ A. The majority of pregnant women with FoC do not discuss their fears, underscoring the need for screening.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"volume\":\"43 4\",\"pages\":\"419-425\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.2021.2013797\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/12/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.2021.2013797","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定分娩恐惧量表(FOBS)是否是一种有用的分娩恐惧筛查工具,并通过分析孕妇在咨询过程中讨论分娩恐惧的频率来研究筛查的潜在附加值:这项横断面调查研究包括通过互联网、医院和助产诊所招募的所有孕龄的无阴道孕妇。在线问卷包括 FOBS 和威玛分娩期望问卷 A 版(W-DEQ A)。后者被用作评估 FoC 的黄金标准(临界值:≥85):根据 W-DEQ A,364 名妇女中有 67 人(18.4%)患有 FoC。使用 FOBS(临界值≥49 分),敏感性为 82.1%,特异性为 81.1%,其中 111 名妇女(30.5%)被确定患有 FoC。阳性预测值为 49.5%,阴性预测值为 95.3%。在患有 FoC(FOBS ≥49)的妇女中,有 68 人(61.3%)没有与她们的护理人员讨论过 FoC:结论:FOBS 是一种有效的 FoC 筛查工具。大多数患有 FoC 的孕妇并不讨论她们的恐惧,这突出表明了筛查的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Identifying women with fear of childbirth with the Dutch Fear of Birth Scale and its added value for consultations.

Objectives: Determine whether the Fear of Birth Scale (FOBS) is a useful screening instrument for Fear of Childbirth (FoC) and examine the potential added value of screening by analyzing how often pregnant women discuss their FoC during consultation.

Methods: This cross-sectional survey study included nulliparous pregnant women of all gestational ages, recruited via the internet, hospital and midwifery practices. The online questionnaires included the FOBS and Wijma Delivery Expectations Questionnaire version A (W-DEQ A). The latter was used as golden standard for assessing FoC (cutoff: ≥85).

Results: Of the 364 included women, 67 (18.4%) had FoC according to the W-DEQ A. Using the FOBS with a cutoff score of ≥49, the sensitivity was 82.1% and the specificity 81.1%, with 111 (30.5%) women identified as having FoC. Positive predictive value was 49.5% and negative predictive value 95.3%. Of the women with FoC (FOBS ≥49), 68 (61.3%) did not discuss FoC with their caregiver.

Conclusion: The FOBS is a useful screening instrument for FoC. A positive score must be followed by further assessment, either by discussing it during consultation or additional evaluation with the W-DEQ A. The majority of pregnant women with FoC do not discuss their fears, underscoring the need for screening.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
3.20%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology was founded in 1982 in order to provide a scientific forum for obstetricians, gynecologists, psychiatrists and psychologists, academic health professionals as well as for all those who are interested in the psychosocial and psychosomatic aspects of women’s health. Another of its aims is to stimulate obstetricians and gynecologists to pay more attention to this very important facet of their profession.
期刊最新文献
Retracted article: The effects of fish oil omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on mental health parameters and metabolic status of patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Effect of social support on fetal movement self-monitoring behavior in Chinese women: a moderated mediation model of health beliefs. The role and outcomes of music therapy during pregnancy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Assessment of factors related to poly cystic ovarian syndrome - A comparative and correlational study. Investigating socioeconomic disparities of Kangaroo mother care on preterm infant health outcomes.
×
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