Review
Year 2018,
Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 97 - 103, 24.06.2018
Abstract
İnsanlığın varoluşundan beri gebelik, doğum ve doğum sonu dönemde kadınlar yalnız bırakılmamış, çevreleri tarafından desteklenmişlerdir. Bu desteğin çoğu arkadaş, aile, toplum ve ebeler tarafından sağlanmıştır. Tarih içerisinde, doğumlara katılmış deneyimli kadınlar “ebe” olarak adlandırılmış ve “ebe” sözcüğü “kadınla birlikte” anlamında kullanılmıştır. Bu nedenle bir meslek olarak ebelik, tüm kültürlerde, tarih boyunca sosyal bir role sahip olmuştur. Fakat, 20.yy’ın ortalarından beri çoğu ülkede, bir çok kadın ev yerine daha çok hastanede doğum yapmaya başlamış ve doğumda sürekli destek rutinin dışına çıkmıştır. Doğum eyleminde medikal müdahalelerin yaygın kullanılmasıyla kadınlar yalnızlığa itilmiş, sosyal destek ve destekleyici ebelik bakımı yerini teknolojik yaklaşımlara bırakmıştır. Bu durum kadınların yeterince destekleyici bakım alamamasına, sadece rutin tıbbi bakım almasına ve sezaryen oranlarının artmasına neden olmuştur. Kadınların doğum deneyimlerinin insani değerlerden uzaklaşması, ebeler tarafından sağlanan sürekli bire bir desteğin geri döndürülmeye çalışılmasına neden olmuştur. Ebeliğin bağımsız rollerinden biri olan sosyal desteğin, anneler ve yenidoğanlar için doğum sonuçlarını iyileştirdiği bilinmekte ve bu nedenle gittikçe önemi artmaktadır. Bu derleme, gebelik, doğum ve doğum sonu dönemde sosyal destek sistemleri ve destekleyici ebelik bakımı hakkında ebelik öğrencilerinin ve ebelerin bilgilendirilmesi ve bu konuya dikkat çekmek amacıyla yazılmıştır.
Keywords
References
- 1. Baheiraei A, Mirghafourvand M, Mohammadi E, Charandabi SMA, Nedjat S. Social support for women of reproductive age and its predictors: a population-based study. BMC Womens Health 2012;12(30):1-7. d http://dx.doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-12-30. 2. Bogossian FE. Social support: Proposing a conceptual model for application to midwifery practice. Women Birth 2007; (20):169-173. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2011.02.001. 3. Campos B, Schetter CD, Abdou CM, Hobel CJ, Glynn LM, Sandman CA. Familialism, social Support, and stress: Positive implications for pregnant latinas. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol 2008; 14(2):155–162. http://dx.doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.14.2.155. 4. Oommen H, Rantanen A, Kaunonen M, Tarkka MT, Salonen AH. Social support provided to Finnish mothers and fathers by nursing professionals in the postnatal ward. Midwifery 2011; (27):754-761. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2010.06.017. 5. Sauls DJ. Effects of labor support on mothers, babies, and birth outcomes. JOGNN 2002; 31(6):89-97. http://dx.doi: 10.1177/0884217502239209. 6. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C, Weston J. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 2. http://dx.doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub3. 7. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013, 7. http://dx.doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub5. 8. Doherty ME. Midwifery care: Reflections of midwifery clients. Journal Perinat Educ 2010; 19(4):41-51. http://dx.doi: 10.1624/105812410X530929. 9. Yanti Y, Claramita M, Emilia O, Hakimi M. Students’ understanding of “Women-Centred Care Philosophy” in midwifery care through Continuity of Care (CoC) learning model: aquasi-experimental study. BMC Nursing 2015; 14 (22):1-7. http://dx.doi: 10.1186/s12912-015-0072-z. 10. Vries RD, Nieuwenhuijze M, Buitendijk SE, What does it take to have a strong and independent profession of midwifery? Lessons from the Netherlands. Midwifery 2013; 29:1122-1128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.07.007. 11. Okumuş F. Ebeler liderliğinde doğum bakım modeli: Hollanda örneği. JACSD 2016; 7:120-14. 12. Korkmaz-Yıldız N. Yeni Zelanda’da ebelik. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Bilim ve Sanatı Dergisi 2008; 1(2):76-80. 13. Arslan H, Karahan N, Çam Ç. Ebeliğin doğası ve doğum şekli üzerine etkisi. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Bilim ve Sanatı Dergisi 2008; 1(2):54-59. 14. https://www.tkhk.gov.tr/6738_anne-dostu-hastane-k (Erişim Tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2017). 15. Kim THM, Connolly JA, Tamim H. The effect of social support around pregnancy on postpartum depression among Canadian teen mothers and adult mothers in the maternity experiences survey. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2014; 14(162):1-9. http://dx.doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-162. 16. Medforth J, Battersby S, Evans M, Marsh B, Walker A. Oxford Handbook of Midwifery. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011, 142-143. 17. Salonen AH, Oommen H, Kaunonen M. Primiparous and multiparous mothers' perceptions of social support from nursing professionals in postnatal wards. Midwifery 2014; (30):476-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.05.010. 18. Rosen P. Supporting women in labor: Analysis of different types of caregivers. J Midwifery Womens Health 2004; 49(1):24-31. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2003.10.013. 19. Bohren MA, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C, Fukuzawa RK, Cuthbert A. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017, 7. http://dx.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub6. 20. Adams ED, Bianchi AL. A practical approach to labor support. JOGNN 2008; 37(1):106-115. http://dx.doi: 10.1111/J.1552-6909.2007.00213.x. 21. Kızılkaya N. Kadınların doğum eylemindeki destekleyici hemşirelik vavranışlarına ilişkin görüşleri. Perinatoloji Dergisi 1997; 5(3-4):113-116. 22. Uludağ E, Mete S. Doğum eyleminde destekleyici bakım. Cumhuriyet Hemşirelik Dergisi 2014 ; 3(2):22-29. 23. Hunter LP. Being with woman: A guiding concept fort he care of laboring women. JOGNN 2002; 31 (6): 650-657. http://dx.doi: 10.1177/ 0884217502239213. 24. Hodnett ED. Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186 (5): 160-172. http://dx.doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.121141. 25. Teeffelen AS, Nieuwenhuijze M, Korstjens I. Women want proactive psychosocial support from midwives during transition to motherhood: a qualitative study. Midwifery 2011; (27):122-127. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2009.09.006 . 26. Simkin, P. Supportive care during labor: A guide for busy nurses. JOGNN 2002; (31):721-732. 27. Höglund B, Larsson M. Professional and social support enhances maternal well-being in women with intellectual disability-A Swedish interview study. Midwifery 2014; (30):1118-1123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2014.03.018. 28. Iliadou M. Supporting women in labour. Health Science Journal 2012; 6(3): 385-391. 29. Wheatley S. Psychological support in pregnancy. In: Clement S. editor. Psychosocial perspectives on pregnancy and childbirth. 1th ed. Edinburg: Churchill Livingstone; 1998. p. 45-58. 30. Rubertsson C, Waldenström U, Wickberg B. Depressive mood in early pregnancy: Prevalence and women at risk in a national Swedish sample. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2003; 21(2):113-123. http://dx.doi: 10.1080/0264683031000124073. 31. Berg M, Ólafsdóttir ÓA, Lundgren I. A midwifery model of woman-centred childbirth care-In Swedish and Icelandic settings. Sex Reprod Healthc 2012;(3):79-87. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.2012.03.001. 32. Zielinski RE, Brody MG, Low LK. The value of the maternity care team in the promotion of physiologic birth. JOGNN 2016; (26):1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogn.2015.12. 33. Sandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbear- ing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016, 4. http://dx.doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5. 34. Sosa G, Crozier K, Robinson J. What is meant by one-to-one support in labour: Analysing the concept. Midwifery 2012; (28):451-457. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2011.07.001. 35. Karaçam Z, Akyüz EÖ. Doğum eyleminde verilen destekleyici bakım ve ebe/hemşirenin rolü. İ.Ü.F.N. Hem. Derg 2011; 19(1):45-53. 36. Boothe AS, Brouwer RJN, Carter-Edwards L, Østbye T. Unmet social support for healthy behaviors among overweight and obese postpartum women: Results from the active mothers postpartum study. J Womens Health 2011; 20(11):1677-1683. http://dx.doi: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2509. 37. Razurel C, Bruchon-Schweitzer M, A. Dupanloup A, Irion O, Epiney M. Stressful events, social support and coping strategies of primiparous women during the postpartum period: A qualitative study. Midwifery 2011; (27):237-242. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2009.06.005 38. Negron R, Martin A, Almong M, Balbierz A, Howell EA. Social support during the postpartum period: Mothers’ views on needs, expectations, and mobilization of support. Matern Child Health J 2013;17(4):616-623. http://dx.doi: 10.1007/s10995-012-1037-4 . 39. Cooke M, Stacey T. Differences in the evaluation of postnatal midwifery support by multiparous and primiparous women in the first two weeks after birth. Aust J Midwifery 2003; 16(3):18-24. 40. Aksakallı M, Çapık A, Ejder-Apay S, Pasinlioğlu T, Bayram S. Loğusaların destek ihtiyaçlarının ve doğum sonu dönemde alınan destek düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing 2012;3(3):129-135. http://dx.doi: 10.5505/phd.2012.57441. 41. Mermer G, Bilge A, Yücel U, Çeber E. Gebelik ve Doğum Sonrası Dönemde Sosyal Destek Algısı Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing 2010;1(2):71-76. 42. Lavender T, Walkinshaw SA. Can midwives reduce postpartum psychological morbidity? A randomized trial. Birth 1998; 25(4):215-219. 43. Jonge A, Vries R, Lagro-Janssen ALM, Malata A, Declercq E, Downe S, Hutton EK. The importance of evaluating primary midwifery care for improving the health of women and infants. Front Med 2015; 2(17):1-6. http://dx.doi: 10.3389/fmed.2015.00017. 44. Pınar G, Pınar T. Yeni doğum yapmış kadınların empatik iletişim beklentilerinin ebe/hemşireler tarafından karşılanma durumu. Tıp Araştırmaları Dergisi 2009; 7(3):132-140. 45. Baston H, Hall J. Midwifery Essentials Antenatal. 2nd ed. Edinburg: Churchill Livingstone; 2009. p. 78-79. 46. McLachlan H, Forster D, Davey M, Farrell T, Gold L, Biro M, Albers L, Flood M, Oats J. Waldenström U. Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2012; (119):1483–1492. http://dx.doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03446.x. 47. http://www.saglikistatistikleri.gov.tr/dosyalar/SIY_2015.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2017).
Year 2018,
Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 97 - 103, 24.06.2018
Abstract
Since the existence of mankind, there is assistance to women who are pregnant or childbirth or in post-partum period by people around them for not to leave them alone. Most of these supports are provided by their friends, families, community and midwives. In history, experienced women who attended childbirths were called “midwives” and the word “midwives” was used to mean “with women.” For this reason, as a profession, midwifery has had a social role throughout history in all cultures. However, in most countries since the middle of the 20th century, many women have begun to give birth in hospital rather than home, and have been out of routine support at birth. Women are isolated by common usage of medical intervention to parturition and, social support and supportive midwifery care have left their places to technological approaches. This has resulted in women not only receiving adequate supportive care, but also receiving routine medical care and increasing cesarean rates. The divergence of women’s childbirth experiences from human values has led to an attempt to return a sustained individual support provided by the midwives. It’s well known that social support that is one of an independent role of midwifery enhances the parturition results for both mother and neonatal therefore it becomes more significant. This review is written to acquaint to midwives and students of midwifery about social support systems and supportive midwifery care during pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum periods, and to point out this subject.
Keywords
References
- 1. Baheiraei A, Mirghafourvand M, Mohammadi E, Charandabi SMA, Nedjat S. Social support for women of reproductive age and its predictors: a population-based study. BMC Womens Health 2012;12(30):1-7. d http://dx.doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-12-30. 2. Bogossian FE. Social support: Proposing a conceptual model for application to midwifery practice. Women Birth 2007; (20):169-173. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2011.02.001. 3. Campos B, Schetter CD, Abdou CM, Hobel CJ, Glynn LM, Sandman CA. Familialism, social Support, and stress: Positive implications for pregnant latinas. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol 2008; 14(2):155–162. http://dx.doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.14.2.155. 4. Oommen H, Rantanen A, Kaunonen M, Tarkka MT, Salonen AH. Social support provided to Finnish mothers and fathers by nursing professionals in the postnatal ward. Midwifery 2011; (27):754-761. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2010.06.017. 5. Sauls DJ. Effects of labor support on mothers, babies, and birth outcomes. JOGNN 2002; 31(6):89-97. http://dx.doi: 10.1177/0884217502239209. 6. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C, Weston J. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 2. http://dx.doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub3. 7. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013, 7. http://dx.doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub5. 8. Doherty ME. Midwifery care: Reflections of midwifery clients. Journal Perinat Educ 2010; 19(4):41-51. http://dx.doi: 10.1624/105812410X530929. 9. Yanti Y, Claramita M, Emilia O, Hakimi M. Students’ understanding of “Women-Centred Care Philosophy” in midwifery care through Continuity of Care (CoC) learning model: aquasi-experimental study. BMC Nursing 2015; 14 (22):1-7. http://dx.doi: 10.1186/s12912-015-0072-z. 10. Vries RD, Nieuwenhuijze M, Buitendijk SE, What does it take to have a strong and independent profession of midwifery? Lessons from the Netherlands. Midwifery 2013; 29:1122-1128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.07.007. 11. Okumuş F. Ebeler liderliğinde doğum bakım modeli: Hollanda örneği. JACSD 2016; 7:120-14. 12. Korkmaz-Yıldız N. Yeni Zelanda’da ebelik. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Bilim ve Sanatı Dergisi 2008; 1(2):76-80. 13. Arslan H, Karahan N, Çam Ç. Ebeliğin doğası ve doğum şekli üzerine etkisi. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Bilim ve Sanatı Dergisi 2008; 1(2):54-59. 14. https://www.tkhk.gov.tr/6738_anne-dostu-hastane-k (Erişim Tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2017). 15. Kim THM, Connolly JA, Tamim H. The effect of social support around pregnancy on postpartum depression among Canadian teen mothers and adult mothers in the maternity experiences survey. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2014; 14(162):1-9. http://dx.doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-162. 16. Medforth J, Battersby S, Evans M, Marsh B, Walker A. Oxford Handbook of Midwifery. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011, 142-143. 17. Salonen AH, Oommen H, Kaunonen M. Primiparous and multiparous mothers' perceptions of social support from nursing professionals in postnatal wards. Midwifery 2014; (30):476-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.05.010. 18. Rosen P. Supporting women in labor: Analysis of different types of caregivers. J Midwifery Womens Health 2004; 49(1):24-31. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2003.10.013. 19. Bohren MA, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C, Fukuzawa RK, Cuthbert A. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017, 7. http://dx.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub6. 20. Adams ED, Bianchi AL. A practical approach to labor support. JOGNN 2008; 37(1):106-115. http://dx.doi: 10.1111/J.1552-6909.2007.00213.x. 21. Kızılkaya N. Kadınların doğum eylemindeki destekleyici hemşirelik vavranışlarına ilişkin görüşleri. Perinatoloji Dergisi 1997; 5(3-4):113-116. 22. Uludağ E, Mete S. Doğum eyleminde destekleyici bakım. Cumhuriyet Hemşirelik Dergisi 2014 ; 3(2):22-29. 23. Hunter LP. Being with woman: A guiding concept fort he care of laboring women. JOGNN 2002; 31 (6): 650-657. http://dx.doi: 10.1177/ 0884217502239213. 24. Hodnett ED. Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186 (5): 160-172. http://dx.doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.121141. 25. Teeffelen AS, Nieuwenhuijze M, Korstjens I. Women want proactive psychosocial support from midwives during transition to motherhood: a qualitative study. Midwifery 2011; (27):122-127. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2009.09.006 . 26. Simkin, P. Supportive care during labor: A guide for busy nurses. JOGNN 2002; (31):721-732. 27. Höglund B, Larsson M. Professional and social support enhances maternal well-being in women with intellectual disability-A Swedish interview study. Midwifery 2014; (30):1118-1123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2014.03.018. 28. Iliadou M. Supporting women in labour. Health Science Journal 2012; 6(3): 385-391. 29. Wheatley S. Psychological support in pregnancy. In: Clement S. editor. Psychosocial perspectives on pregnancy and childbirth. 1th ed. Edinburg: Churchill Livingstone; 1998. p. 45-58. 30. Rubertsson C, Waldenström U, Wickberg B. Depressive mood in early pregnancy: Prevalence and women at risk in a national Swedish sample. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2003; 21(2):113-123. http://dx.doi: 10.1080/0264683031000124073. 31. Berg M, Ólafsdóttir ÓA, Lundgren I. A midwifery model of woman-centred childbirth care-In Swedish and Icelandic settings. Sex Reprod Healthc 2012;(3):79-87. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.2012.03.001. 32. Zielinski RE, Brody MG, Low LK. The value of the maternity care team in the promotion of physiologic birth. JOGNN 2016; (26):1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogn.2015.12. 33. Sandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbear- ing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016, 4. http://dx.doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5. 34. Sosa G, Crozier K, Robinson J. What is meant by one-to-one support in labour: Analysing the concept. Midwifery 2012; (28):451-457. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2011.07.001. 35. Karaçam Z, Akyüz EÖ. Doğum eyleminde verilen destekleyici bakım ve ebe/hemşirenin rolü. İ.Ü.F.N. Hem. Derg 2011; 19(1):45-53. 36. Boothe AS, Brouwer RJN, Carter-Edwards L, Østbye T. Unmet social support for healthy behaviors among overweight and obese postpartum women: Results from the active mothers postpartum study. J Womens Health 2011; 20(11):1677-1683. http://dx.doi: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2509. 37. Razurel C, Bruchon-Schweitzer M, A. Dupanloup A, Irion O, Epiney M. Stressful events, social support and coping strategies of primiparous women during the postpartum period: A qualitative study. Midwifery 2011; (27):237-242. http://dx.doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2009.06.005 38. Negron R, Martin A, Almong M, Balbierz A, Howell EA. Social support during the postpartum period: Mothers’ views on needs, expectations, and mobilization of support. Matern Child Health J 2013;17(4):616-623. http://dx.doi: 10.1007/s10995-012-1037-4 . 39. Cooke M, Stacey T. Differences in the evaluation of postnatal midwifery support by multiparous and primiparous women in the first two weeks after birth. Aust J Midwifery 2003; 16(3):18-24. 40. Aksakallı M, Çapık A, Ejder-Apay S, Pasinlioğlu T, Bayram S. Loğusaların destek ihtiyaçlarının ve doğum sonu dönemde alınan destek düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing 2012;3(3):129-135. http://dx.doi: 10.5505/phd.2012.57441. 41. Mermer G, Bilge A, Yücel U, Çeber E. Gebelik ve Doğum Sonrası Dönemde Sosyal Destek Algısı Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing 2010;1(2):71-76. 42. Lavender T, Walkinshaw SA. Can midwives reduce postpartum psychological morbidity? A randomized trial. Birth 1998; 25(4):215-219. 43. Jonge A, Vries R, Lagro-Janssen ALM, Malata A, Declercq E, Downe S, Hutton EK. The importance of evaluating primary midwifery care for improving the health of women and infants. Front Med 2015; 2(17):1-6. http://dx.doi: 10.3389/fmed.2015.00017. 44. Pınar G, Pınar T. Yeni doğum yapmış kadınların empatik iletişim beklentilerinin ebe/hemşireler tarafından karşılanma durumu. Tıp Araştırmaları Dergisi 2009; 7(3):132-140. 45. Baston H, Hall J. Midwifery Essentials Antenatal. 2nd ed. Edinburg: Churchill Livingstone; 2009. p. 78-79. 46. McLachlan H, Forster D, Davey M, Farrell T, Gold L, Biro M, Albers L, Flood M, Oats J. Waldenström U. Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2012; (119):1483–1492. http://dx.doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03446.x. 47. http://www.saglikistatistikleri.gov.tr/dosyalar/SIY_2015.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2017).
There are 1 citations in total.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
| Journal Section | Reviews |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | June 24, 2018 |
| Submission Date | September 20, 2017 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2018 Volume: 8 Issue: 2 |
