Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros




Base de datos
Asunto de la revista
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Front Pediatr ; 10: 803932, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35433551

RESUMEN

Background: Sustained social withdrawal is a key indicator of child emotional distress and a risk factor for psychological development. Preterm infants have a higher probability of developing sustained social withdrawal than infants born full-term during their first year. Objective: To compare the effect of a behavioral guidance intervention to that of routine pediatric care on sustained social withdrawal behavior in preterm infants. Design: Multicenter randomized clinical trial. Participants: Ninety nine moderate and late preterm newborns and their parents were recruited and randomized into two groups, i.e., Intervention (n = 49) and Control (n = 50). Both groups attended medical check-ups at 2, 6 and 12 months and were assessed with the Alarm Distress Baby Scale. The intervention group received a standardized behavioral intervention if the neonatologist detected sustained social withdrawal. Also, parents filled out the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, the modified-Perinatal Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Questionnaire, and the Impact of Event Scale-revised. Results: At baseline, the prevalence of withdrawal was 4.0% (95% CI: 0.03-14.2) for the control group and 22.4% (95% CI: 13.0-35.9) for the intervention group [OR = 0.22, p = 0.028 (95% CI =0.06-0.84)]. At 6 months, the prevalence was 10.0% (95% CI: 3.9-21.8) for the control group and 6.1% (95% CI: 2.1-16.5) for the intervention group [OR = 2.09, p = 0.318 (95% CI = 0.49-8.88)]. At 12 months, the prevalence was 22.0% (95% CI: 12.8-35.2) for the control group and 4.1% (95% CI: 1.1-13.7) for the intervention group [OR = 6.63, p = 0.018 (95% CI = 1.39-31.71)]. Logistic generalized estimating equation models were performed. The pooled crude OR (considering diagnosis at 6 and 12 months) was 3.54 [p = 0.022 (95% CI = 1.20-10.44); Cohen's d= 0.70]. In the case of pooled adjusted OR, the model considered diagnosis (0 = Withdrawal, 1 = Normal) as the dependent variable, time of evaluation (1= 6 months, 2 = 12 months) and group (0 = Control, 1 = Experimental) as factors. In this case, the pooled adjusted OR was 3.57 [p = 0.022 (95% CI = 1.20-10.65); Cohen's d = 0.70]. Conclusion: Assessment and intervention of sustained social withdrawal in preterm infants via standardized instruments benefits families by reducing its prevalence, and possible associated negative outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03212547, identifier: NCT03212547.

2.
Enferm Clin (Engl Ed) ; 32 Suppl 1: S5-S13, 2022 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35183488

RESUMEN

AIM OF THE STUDY: To describe prenatal stress and state anxiety levels in pregnant women living in Spain during the lockdown of the first wave of COVID-19 and its relation with obstetric factors, perception of health care, and concerns about the socio-sanitary situation. METHODS: The present study is an observational, correlational, and cross-sectional quantitative study. The participants in the study were pregnant women recruited through non-probabilistic convenience and snowball sampling during the lockdown. A web link was provided to an online questionnaire designed for this research, which collected socio-demographic and obstetric variables, perceptions of health care received during the pandemic and preoccupations associated with COVID-19. It also included the Prenatal Stress Questionnaire (PDQ) and the State Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S). RESULTS: Based on the responses of 695 pregnant women, the results showed a mean of 16.98 (SD = 25.20) of prenatal stress and elevated levels of anxiety (M = 25.20/SD = 11.07) in the first wave of the pandemic. Risk factors for prenatal stress and anxiety were the level of preoccupation associated with COVID-19 and previous mental health issues. A specific risk factor for anxiety was having more than one child and a protective factor were perceiving accessibility and availability of health care, with clear and consistent pregnancy care and follow-up protocols. CONCLUSIONS: The lockdown period for COVID-19 was a stressful experience for pregnant women, highlighting the need to address their psychological well-being through clear and coherent protocols in terms of maternal-foetal health control and follow-up.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Complicaciones del Embarazo , Ansiedad/epidemiología , Ansiedad/etiología , COVID-19/epidemiología , Niño , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Complicaciones del Embarazo/epidemiología , Mujeres Embarazadas/psicología , España/epidemiología , Estrés Psicológico/epidemiología , Estrés Psicológico/etiología
3.
Enferm Clin ; 32: S5-S13, 2022 05.
Artículo en Español | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34697530

RESUMEN

Aim of the study: To describe prenatal stress and state anxiety levels in pregnant women living in Spain during the lockdown of the first wave of COVID-19 and its relation with obstetric factors, perception of health care, and concerns about the socio-sanitary situation. Methods: The present study is an observational, correlational, and cross-sectional quantitative study. The participants in the study were pregnant women recruited through non-probabilistic convenience and snowball sampling during the lockdown. A web link was provided to an online questionnaire designed for this research, which collected socio-demographic and obstetric variables, perceptions of health care received during the pandemic and preoccupations associated with COVID-19. It also included the Prenatal Stress Questionnaire (PDQ) and the State Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S). Results: Based on the responses of 695 pregnant women, the results showed a mean of 16.98 (SD = 25.20) of prenatal stress and elevated levels of anxiety (M = 25.20/SD = 11.07) in the first wave of the pandemic. Risk factors for prenatal stress and anxiety were the level of preoccupation associated with COVID-19 and previous mental health issues. A specific risk factor for anxiety was having more than one child and a protective factor were perceiving accessibility and availability of health care, with clear and consistent pregnancy care and follow-up protocols. Conclusions: The lockdown period for COVID-19 was a stressful experience for pregnant women, highlighting the need to address their psychological well-being through clear and coherent protocols in terms of maternal-foetal health control and follow-up.


Asunto(s)
Ansiedad , COVID-19 , Mujeres Embarazadas , Ansiedad/epidemiología , Ansiedad/etiología , Ansiedad/psicología , Estudios Transversales , Depresión , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Mujeres Embarazadas/psicología , España/epidemiología , Estrés Psicológico/epidemiología , Estrés Psicológico/etiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA