The Effect of Hydrotherapy Applied During the Active Phase of Labor on Postpartum Depression: A Case-Control Study

1Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare postpartum depression using the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) between the pregnant women who gave birth after hydrotherapy applied during the active phase of labor and those who had conventional delivery. Material and Methods: Between March 2017 and March 2019, 337 pregnant women who gave birth after hydrotherapy applied during the active phase of labor and as the control group, 101 pregnant women who gave birth after spontaneous labor in the same period were included in the study. Demographic characteristics, mode of delivery (vaginal or cesarean section), the visual analog scale (VAS) values for labor pain at the 5th and 10th cm dilatation of the cervix, newborn weight, and gender, presence of maternal and neonatal complications, APGAR scores were recorded. EPDS and BDI were applied by phone in the 6th week postpartum. Results: Median gravida, parity, 1st and 5th minute APGAR scores, VAS at the 5th cm dilatation of the cervix were significantly lower in the hydrotherapy group than in the control group. The number of educated patients, the rate of the nuclear family, and the rate of being educated at the pregnancy school were higher in the hydrotherapy group than in the control group. There was no difference between hydroterapy group and controls in terms of EPDS and BDI scores, mode of delivery, maternal complications, neonatal intensive care unit admission rate. Conclusion: Labour with hydrotherapy may reduce pain in the intrapartum period but doesn't affect postpartum depression.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Aksakal, S. E., Pay, R. E., Köse, C., Özkan, D., & Üstün, Y. E. (2022). The Effect of Hydrotherapy Applied During the Active Phase of Labor on Postpartum Depression: A Case-Control Study. Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 32(4), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.5336/jcog.2022-88397

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free