Women Health Clinical trial Pregnancy and Childbirth
Conditions
Interventions
Routine Care
Both the intervention and control group received the routine care provided by the hospital. The routine care involved postnatal support by nurses and midwives while they stayed in the ho
Rowe & Fisher, 2010), Bandura?s self-efficacy theory and the Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964
Homans, 1961).
The PPP was an additional support, which was provided to the mothers in the intervention group in addition to the routine care.PPP involved a postnatal home visit by a midwife (the re
three follow-up phone calls on a weekly basis and an educational booklet. A single home visit of approximately 90 minutes duration was conducted between days 5 to 14 post-deliveries, as the first two
Sponsors
National University of Singapore (Singapore)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
Female
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: The inclusion criteria for participants were first-time mothers who were: 1. 21 years old and above 2. Able to read and speak English.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: The exclusion criteria for participants were first-time mothers who: 1. Hd medical and psychiatric history (including perinatal depression) before and during pregnancy as identified by medical records 2. Had complicated assisted delivery such as vacuum or forceps with 4th degree tear 3. Had delivered a newborn with apparent congenital anomalies or delivered a still-born at birth 4. Had a newborn not to be discharged home with the mother; and/or 5. Were not able to stay in Singapore after hospital discharge in the first 6 weeks post delivery.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The primary outcome measure was the maternal parental self-efficacy. It was measured by Perceived Maternal Parental Self-Efficacy (PMP S-E) scale. It is a domain specific 20-item scale developed by Barnes and Adamson-Macedo (2007) based on the Bandura?s self-efficacy theory (1997). A local expert panel validated the instrument and the original 20-item scale was reduced to 17 items because of repetition. Each item was rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree). The modified PMPS-E scale total score ranged between 17 and 68, where a higher score means higher level of self-efficacy in newborn care. This instrument had Cronbach?s alpha of 0.91 as reported by Barnes and Adamson-Macedo, 2007. In a local study conducted in Singapore context (Shorey et al., 2013), the Cronbach?s alpha value was 0.95 which indicated a good internal consistency (Nunnally and Berstein, 1994). | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The secondary outcomes were the social support and the postnatal depression. The instruments used to measure these outcomes are described below: 1. Perinatal Infant Care Social Support Scale Leahy-Warren (2005) developed the Perinatal Infant Care Social Support Scale (PICSS) based on literature and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961). It measures both functional and structural social support. The functional support scale comprised 22 items consisting of four subscales: 7 items for informational support; 7 items for instrumental support; 4 items for emotional support and 4 items for appraisal support where each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale, with 1 means ?totally disagree? and 4 means ?totally agree?. The total functional social support scores ranged between 22 and 88; a range from 7 to 28 depicted informational and instrumental subscales and 4 to 16 depicted the emotional and appraisal subscales. To make fair comparisons, all the four subscales scores were transformed to a common denominator of 100. The structural social support identified the individuals who provided support to mothers and comprised nine items. Both formal sources (nurses/midwives, doctors and others such as confinement nannies) and informal sources (husband/partner, maternal parents, parents in- laws, siblings, friends and neighbours) were considered on all four functional subscales. Based on the reviews from the local expert panel, originally there were six items including four items of functional social support, and two items of asking ?The length I have got to know this person,? and ? The frequency I contact with this person? were available in the structural social support scale, which were later modified to four items after the validation by the expert panel due to the redundancy of the last two items. If participants answered ?yes? to any of the four items of functional support from at least one source, they are considered to have received the structural sup | — |
Countries
Singapore
Outcome results
None listed