RESUMO
Fear of childbirth (FOC), or tokophobia, can influence several medical and obstetric variables, and is a significant predictor of maternal and mental health outcomes and birth experiences. Current practice in the UK does not include initial screening for tokophobia, rather, assessment and support occur under extreme circumstances e.g. maternal requests for caesarean sections or pregnancy termination requests in order to avoid childbirth. Moreover, while there are several candidate outcome measures for FOC, none have been evaluated in terms of their perceived suitability by specialist practitioners within perinatal healthcare pathways. The present study explores the perceived barriers and facilitators reported by health professionals working within the maternity and mental health services for the use of FOC candidate outcome measures. Evaluated measures included the Fear of Birth Scale, the Oxford Worries about Labour Scale, The Wijma Delivery Expectancy Scale, the Slade-Pais Expectations of Childbirth Scale the Tokophobia Severity Scale. The Tokophobia Severity Scale, followed by the Slade-Pais Expectations of Childbirth Scales were the most favourable scales selected for use according to clinicians. The identification of preferred scales and how they can be used in the local maternity system is a step towards the application of these consistently in clinical practice, to aid in the identification and assessment of FOC. The use of the correct tool at each stage of contact with the local maternity system will improve clinician confidence in the identification of FOC and facilitate the efficient implementation of treatment and support through the development of pathways of care.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Skin sensitivity characteristics and triggers have been identified in populations in previous studies. However, few have compared these characteristics among self-reported sensitive skin. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare specific intrinsic and extrinsic triggers of skin sensitivity between individuals with self-reported sensitive skin and non-sensitive skin. METHODS: A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify intrinsic and extrinsic factors associated with sensitive skin. A 167-item survey was developed on the basis of the literature review. The survey was completed online by a sample of adult participants drawn from the general United Kingdom population. Participants also completed sociodemographic and self-reported health questions. RESULTS: A total of 3050 surveys were completed: 1526 participants with self-reported skin sensitivity and 1524 participants not reporting skin sensitivity. There was a decrease in self-reported skin sensitivity with increasing age (p<0.05), and proportionally more women reported sensitive skin. Smoking also led to a higher frequency of sensitive skin. All signs and symptoms of sensitive skin, such as itch, dryness/flakiness, roughness and flushing/blushing were more commonly reported by those with self-reported sensitive skin. These were frequently reported in association with external factors (cold/windy weather, clothes and fabrics), as well as internal factors such as pre-existing skin conditions and atopy. CONCLUSION: The study evaluated self-reported sensitive skin against a non-sensitive skin in order to identify common inherent and external triggers to distinguish between these groups in a large general population study in the United Kingdom. The key symptoms and signs of this syndrome identified in the literature were confirmed to be reported significantly more when compared with those without sensitive skin. However, no correlation or pattern of symptomology could be identified, reinforcing the complexity of this condition. Given the strong differentiation from the non-sensitive group, the results of this research could be utilised for the development of a clinically meaningful screening tool.