Introduction
Methods
Study design
Setting and participants
Measures
Procedure
Intervention
First session
Second session
Statistical analysis
Results
Group | Intervention | Control | P value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | ||||
Newborns’ gender | Male | 14(46.7%) | 23(51.1%) | 0.70 |
Female | 16(53.3%) | 22(48.9%) | ||
Type of delivery | Normal vaginal delivery (NVD) | 12(40%) | 13(28.9%) | 0.31 |
Cesarean section | 18(60%) | 32(71.1%) | ||
Mothers’ education level | Under the diploma | 7(23.3%) | 13(28.9%) | 0.25 |
Diploma and Bachelor | 21(70%) | 24(53.3%) | ||
Master and Ph.D. | 2(6.7%) | 8(17.8%) | ||
Mother’s job | Employed | 5(16.7%) | 11(24.4%) | 0.42 |
Unemployed | 25(83.3%) | 34(75.6%) | ||
Being multiparous or nulliparous | Nulliparous | 15(50%) | 25(55.6%) | 0.63 |
Multiparous | 15(50%) | 20(44.4%) | ||
Abortion history | Yes | 7(23.3%) | 12(26.7%) | 0.74 |
No | 23(76.7%) | 33(73.3%) | ||
Fathers’ education level | Under the Diploma | 5(16.7%) | 2(4.4%) | 0.06 |
Diploma and Bachelor | 17(56.7%) | 36(80%) | ||
Master and Ph.D. | 8(26.7%) | 7(15.6%) | ||
Father’s job | Employed | 30(100%) | 45(100%) | |
Unemployed | 0 | 0 | ||
Place of residence | Shiraz city | 10(33.3%) | 17(37.8%) | 0.53 |
City around | 13(43.3%) | 14(31.1%) | ||
Rural | 7(23.3%) | 14(31.1%) | ||
Newborns’ birth weight (kg) | 1892.66 ± 411.02 | 1772.88 ± 331.09 | 0.16 | |
Pregnancy age (year) | 34.36 ± 1.5 | 34.13 ± 1.45 | 0.50 | |
Mothers’ age (year) | 25.80 ± 5.65 | 24.53 ± 5.04 | 0.31 | |
Fathers’ age (year) | 29.33 ± 5.58 | 28.04 ± 4.22 | 0.25 |
Stress | Control | Intervention | Difference of means | 95% CI | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group | |||||
Before the intervention | 68.28 ± 13.76 | 72.96 ± 12.25 | −4.67 | [−10.87, 1.51] | 0.13 |
After the intervention | 71.31 ± 9.78 | 57.50 ± 6.29 | 13.81 | [9.78, 17.83] | < 0.001 |
p-value | 0.115 | < 0.001 |
p
= 0.057). There was a significant difference between the self-efficacy mean scores in the control and experimental groups after the intervention (p
< 0.001). In the control group, the mean self-efficacy scores before and after the intervention were not significantly different (p
= 0.115). However, in the intervention group before and after the intervention, the mean self-efficacy scores were 60.83 ± 4.77 and 70. 0 ± 4.82 respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p<0.001). The results are presented in Table 3.Self-efficacy | Control | Intervention | Difference of means | 95% CI | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group | |||||
Before the intervention | 63.66 ± 7.89 | 60.83 ± 4.77 | 2.833 | [−0.37, 6.0] | 0.057 |
After the intervention | 60.95 ± 6.33 | 70.0 ± 4.82 | −9.04 | [−11.76, −6.32] | < 0.001 |
p-value | 0.115 | < 0.001 |
Total-Stress | N | Mean ± SD | Mean rank | Sum of rank | Test Statistics |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group | |||||
Before the intervention | 75 | 70.16 ± 13.30 | 33 | 95 | p = 0.009 |
After the intervention | 75 | 65.78 ± 10.90 | 40 | 87 | Z = −2.596 |