Level of knowledge of pregnant women in the public service about humanized birth

Main Article Content

Amanda Basílio Bastos dos Santos
Enaldo Vieira de Melo
Júlia Maria de Gonçalves Dias
Rayssa da Nóbrega Didou
Rodrigo Almeida Santiago de Araujo
Willas de Oliveira Santos
Lorena Barreto Araújo

Abstract

Introduction: The awareness of pregnant women is fundamental to positive birth experiences. Objective: To analyze the level of knowledge on humanized birth of pregnant women from two public services and characterize the sample epidemiologically. Methods: Descriptive study using questionnaire between June and August 2017. Sample with 297 pregnant women being selected 200 after applying the exclusion criteria. Association test of variables were used (Chi-square and Fisher's exact test). Results: Mean age was 26.6 years. Majority were from countryside (72.5%), income up to a minimum wage (90.5%) and more of eight years of education (62.5%). 71% started prenatal care in the first trimester and it was conducted by physician in 71% of cases. 71% preferred vaginal delivery and 44% related fear of cesarean. Prenatal professional in charge did not provide information for 66.5%. 30.5% have heard about humanized childbirth, among these, 83.6% showed adequate concepts. Associations were observed between prior knowledge of humanized childbirth and origin (Aracaju) (p=0.03), higher income (p 0.02), lower abortion incidence (p=0.04), prenatal physician (p=0.04) and preference for normal childbirth (p=0.04). Among women without previous knowledge on humanized childbirth there association of correct concept with higher income (p=0.03), schooling (p=0.02) and prenatal physician (p=0.01) Conclusion: The majority did not know about humanized delivery, were from the countryside with lower income, preference for normal birth, were not informed on the types of delivery by the professional practitioner (in majority doctors), whom knew properly. Adequate concepts about humanized childbirth, even in the absence of prior information, were associated to socio-economic and prenatal variables.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Santos, A. B. B. dos, Melo, E. V. de, Dias, J. M. de G., Didou, R. da N., Araujo, R. A. S. de, Santos, W. de O., & Araújo, L. B. (2019). Level of knowledge of pregnant women in the public service about humanized birth. ABCS Health Sciences, 44(3). https://doi.org/10.7322/abcshs.v44i3.1393
Section
Original Articles

References

1. Sánchez JA, Roche MEM, Vigueras MDN, Peña EB, López RM, Munárriz LA. Los conceptos del parto normal, natural y humanizado. El caso del área I de salud de la región de Murcia. Rev Antropol Iberoamericana. 2012;7(2):225-47.

2. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C, Weston J. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (2):CD003766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858

3. Carvalho EMP, Göttems LBD, Pires MRGM. Adherence to best care practices in normal birth: construction and validation of an instrument. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2015;49(6):890-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0080-623420150000600003

4. d'Orsi E, Brüggemann OM, Diniz CSG, Aguiar JM, Gusman CR, Torres JA, et al. Desigualdades sociais e satisfação das mulheres com o atendimento ao parto no Brasil: estudo nacional de base hospitalar. Cad Saúde Pública. 2014;30(1):S154-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00087813

5. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Políticas de Saúde. Área Técnica da Mulher. Programa de Humanização do Pré-natal e Nascimento. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2000.

6. Lasnet A, Jelen AF, Douysset X, Pons JC, Sergent F. Introducing a daily obstetric audit: A solution to reduce the cesárean section rate?. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2015;44(6):550-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2014.08.003

7. Darsareh F, Aghamolaei T, Rajaei M, Madani A, Zare S. The differences between pregnant women who request elective caesarean and those who plan for vaginal birth based on Health Belief Model. Women Birth. 2016;29(6):e126-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2016.05.006

8. Silveira DS, Santos IS. Factors associated with cesárean sections among low-income women in Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.Cad Saúde Pública. 2004;20(2):S231-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2004000800018

9. Pinheiro BC, Bittar CML. Percepções, expectativas e conhecimentos sobre o parto normal: relatos de experiência de parturientes e dos profissionais de saúde. Aletheia. 2012;(37):212-27.

10. Anastasi E, Borchert M, Campbell OMR, Sondorp E, Kaducu F, Hill O, et al. Losing women along the path to safe motherhood: why is there such a gap between women's use of antenatal care and skilled birth attendance? A mixed methods study in northern Uganda. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:287. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0695

11. Behruzi R, Hatem M, Goulet L, Fraser WD. Perception of humanization of birth in a highly specialized hospital: let's think differently. Health Care Women Int. 2014;35(2):127-48. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2013.857321

12. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Departamento de Informática do SUS: DATASUS. Disponível em: http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/tabcgi.exe?sinasc/cnv/nvuf.def. Acesso em: 30 ago. 2017.

13. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Assistência pré-natal: manual técnico. 3 ed. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2000.

14. Figueiredo NSV, Barbosa MCA, Silva TAS, Passarini TM, Lana BN, Barreto J. Fatores culturais determinantes da escolha da via de partos por gestantes. HU Rev. 2010;36(4):296-306.

15. Silva HM, Ribeiro CM, Costa AR. Acompanhamento de gestantes: nível de informações e influências de familiares, amigos e da mídia para a decisão do tipo de parto. Conexão Ciênc. 2011;6(1):32-40.

16. Sodré TM, Bonadio IC, Jesus MCP, Merighi MAB. Necessidade de cuidado e desejo de participação no parto de gestantes residentes em Londrina-Paraná. Texto Contexto Enferm. 2010;19(3):452-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-07072010000300006

17. Cardoso PO, Alberti LR, Petroianu A. Morbidade neonatal e materna relacionada ao tipo de parto. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. 2010;15(2):427-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232010000200019

18. Nascimento RRP, Arantes SL, Souza EDC, Contrera L, Sales APA. Escolha do tipo de parto: fatores relatados por puérperas. Rev Gaúcha Enferm. 2015; 36(esp.):119-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1983-1447.2015.esp.56496

19. Weidle WG, Medeiros CRG, Grave MTQ, Dal Bosco SM. Escolha da via de parto pela mulher: autonomia ou indução?. Cad Saúde Coletiva. 2014;22(1):46-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-462X201400010008

20. Rattner D. Humanização na atenção a nascimentos e partos: ponderações sobre políticas públicas. Interface. 2009;13(Suppl.1):759-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1414-32832009000500027

21. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Políticas de Saúde. Parto, aborto e puerpério: assistência humanizada à mulher. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2001.

22. Beckett K. Choosing cesárean: Feminism and the politics of childbirth in the United States. Feminist Theory. 2005;6(3):251-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464700105057363

23. Domingues RMSM, Santos EM, Leal MC. Aspectos da satisfação das mulheres com a assistência ao parto: contribuição para o debate. Cad Saúde Pública. 2004;20(1):S52-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2004000700006

24. Norhayati MN, Nik Hazlina NH, Aniza AA, Sulaiman Z. Factors associated with severe maternal morbidity in Kelantan, Malaysia: a comparative cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0980-2

25. Behruzi R, Hatem M, Fraser W, Goulet L, Ii M, Misago C. Facilitators and barriers in the humanization of childbirth practice in Japan. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10:25. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-10-25

26. Pereira ALF, Bento AD. Autonomia no parto normal na perspectiva das mulheres atendidas na casa de parto. Rev Rene. 2011;12(3):471-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.15253/rev%20rene.v12i3.4262

27. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Princípios de ética biomédica. São Paulo: Loyola, 2002.

28. Freitas PF, Drachler ML, Leite JCC, Grassi, PR. Desigualdade social nas taxas de cesariana em primíparas no Rio Grande do Sul. Rev Saúde Pública. 2005;39(5):761-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102005000500010

29. Leguizamon JT, Steffani J A, Bonamigo, EL. Escolha da via de parto: expectativa de gestantes e obstetras. Rev Bioética. 2013;21(3):509-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1983-80422013000300015