Groggy and with Tied Hands: The First Contact with the Newborn According to Women that Had an Unwanted C-Section

Autores/as

  • Heloisa De Oliveira Salgado Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo.
  • Denise Yoshie Niy Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo.
  • Carmen Simone Grilo Diniz Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.61298

Palabras clave:

cesarean section, mother-child relations, gender and health, violence against women, social networking

Resumen

Abstract
Objective: to describe and analyze the experience and feelings of mothers who had an unwanted Csection, with regard to the first contact with their newborn. Methods: this is a qualitative webbased research, whose call for participants was published in October 2011 on a social network of mothers website. The women were interviewed in regard to their experience with C-section, referred to as an unwanted outcome, invited to make narratives about the feelings associated with the experience of labor and childbirth and to the postpartum period. The analysis was conducted within a gender perspective. Results: the 20 women interviewed age ranged from 17 to 41 years, 19 women had studied for 12 or more years and were married or lived with a partner. Only two women remained with their newborns right after birth. The other ones were kept apart from their babies for periods that ranged between one hour (three women) and more than four hours (six women). Most women could not have a partner/companion during the immediate postpartum period, although in Brazil this is a right guaranteed by law. The majority had also suffered some kind of violence and many also regretted being under the influence of medication for sedation during their first contact with the newborn. Regarding this first contact, three groups were identified: women with feelings of fulfillment, those with ambiguous feelings, and those without any positive feelings about the first contact with their newborn. Conclusion: women referring to their C-section as an unwanted outcome had their frustration towards the birth experience amplified by the conditions of the first contact
with their newborn. These conditions were negatively influenced by the immediate postpartum assistance routines.

Referencias

Hodnett ED. Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2002;186:S160-72.

Domingues RMSM, Santos EM, Leal MC. Aspectos da satisfação das mulheres com a assistência ao parto: contribuição para o debate. Cad. Saúde Pública. 2004; 20:52-62.

Silva, AVR, Siqueira, AA F. O valor do suporte à parturiente: um estudo da relação interpessoal no contexto de um Centro de Parto Normal. Rev. bras. crescimento desenvolv. hum. 2007; 17: 126-35.

Diniz CSG. Humanização da assistência ao parto no Brasil: os muitos sentidos de um movimento. Ciênc. Saúde Coletiva. 2005;10:627-37.

Leão MRC; Riesco MLG; Schneck CA; Angelo M. Reflexões sobre o excesso de cesarianas no Brasil e a autonomia das mulheres. Ciência e Saúde Coletiva, v. 1, 2012. p182.

Salgado HO. A experiência da cesárea indesejada: perspectivas das mulheres sobre decisões e suas implicações no parto e nascimento. Dissertação de Mestrado, Faculdade de Saúde Pública, Universidade de São Paulo, 2012, 155p.

Potter JE, Berquo E, Perpetuo IH, Leal OF, Hopkins K, Souza MR, et al. Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. BMJ. 2001;323:1155-8.

Dias MAB, Domingues RMSM, Pereira APE, Fonseca SC, Gama SGN, Theme Filha MM, Bittencourt DAS, Rocha PMM, Schilithz AOC, Leal MC. Trajetória das mulheres na definição pelo parto cesáreo: estudo de caso em duas unidades do sistema de saúde suplementar do estado do Rio de Janeiro. Ciênc. Saúde Coletiva. 2008;13:1521-34.

Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Datasus. Informações de saúde. Brasília, DF, 2010. [acesso em 16 outubro 2011]. Disponível em: http://www2.datasus.gov.br/DATASUS/index.php?area=02.

Victora CG, Barreto ML, do Carmo Leal M, Monteiro CA, Schmidt MI, Paim J, Bastos FI et al. Lancet Brazil Series WorkingGroup. Health conditions and health-policy innovations in Brazil: the way forward. Lancet. 2011 Jun11; 377(9782):2042-53.

Bodner K, Wierrani F, Grünberger W, Bodner-Adler B. Influence of the mode of delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes: a comparison between elective cesarean section and planned vaginal delivery in a low-risk obstetric population. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2011;283:1193-8.

Chalmers B, Kaczorowski J, Darling E, Heaman M, Fell DB, O’Brien B, Lee L; Maternity Experiences Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Cesarean and vaginal birth in canadian women: a comparison of experiences. Birth. 2010;37:44-9.

Perez-Rios N, Ramos-Valencia G, Ortiz AP. Cesarean delivery as a barrier for breastfeeding initiation: the Puerto Rican experience. J Hum. Lac. 2008;24:293-302.

Vieira TO, Vieira GO, Giugliani ERJ, Mendes CMC, Martins CC, Silva LR. Determinants of breastfeeding initiation within the first hour of life in a Brazilian population: cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:760.

Zanardo V, Svegliado G, Cavallin F, Giustardi A, Cosmi E, Litta P, Trevisanuto D. Elective cesarean delivery: does it have a negative effect on breastfeeding? Birth. 2010; 37:275-279.

D’Oliveira AFP, Diniz, SG, Scraiber LB. Violence against women in health-care institutions: an emerging problem. Lancet 2002;359:1681-5.

Rapoport, A, Piccinini, CA. Apoio social e experiência da maternidade. Rev. bras. crescimento desenvolv. hum. 2006; 16: 85-96.

Borsa JC. Considerações acerca da relação Mãe-Bebê da Gestação ao Puerpério. Rev. Contemporânea Psicanálise e Transdisciplinaridade. 2007;2:310-21.

Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, Neilson J, Crowther C, Duley L, Hodnett E, Hofmeyer, J. Guia para atenção efetiva na gravidez e parto. 3. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan, 2005.

Maternity Care Working Party. Making Normal Birth a Reality. Consensus Statement from the Maternity Care Working Party: Our Shared Views about the Need to Recognise, Facilitate and Audit Normal Birth. London: NCT/RCM/RCOG; 2007.

Barbieri, Teresita de. “Sobre la categoria de geìnero - una introduccioìn teìoricometodologica” In: AZEREDO, Sandra & STOLCKE, Verena. Direitos Reprodutivos. SaÞo Paulo: FundaçaÞo Carlos Chagas/DPE, 1991, p. 25-46.

Diniz CSG. Gênero, saúde materna e o paradoxo perinatal. Rev. bras. crescimento desenvolv. hum. 2009; 19:313-26.

Diniz SG; D’Oliveira AFPL; Lansky S. Equity and women’s health services for contraception, abortion and childbirth in Brazil. Reproductive Health Matters. 2012;20: 94-101.

Gutman L. A maternidade e o encontro com a própria sombra: o resgate do relacionamento entre mães e filhos. São Paulo (SP): Editora BestSeller; 2010. p.41.

Holman Jones, S. (2005). Autoethnography: Making the personal political. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, (2nd ed., pp. 763–791). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Minayo, C. Pesquisa Social – Teoria, Método e Criatividade. Vozes. Rio de Janeiro, 1995.

Lino HC. O bem-estar no parto sob o ponto de vista das pacientes e profissionais na assistência obstétrica. Dissertação de Mestrado. Faculdade de Saúde Publica, Universidade de São Paulo, 2010, 171p.

Madge C., O’Connor H. Parenting gone wired: empowerment of new mothers on the internet? [acesso em 5 agosto 2012]. Disponível em: https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/1403/1/CM%20social%20and%20cultural%20revised%20submission%20Apri%202005.pdf

Beck CT. Benefits of Participating in Internet Interviews: Women Helping Women. Qual. Health Res. 2005;15:411-22.

Odent M. A cientificação do amor. Florianópolis (SC): Saint Germain; 2002.

Toma TS, Rea MF. Benefícios da amamentação para a saúde da mulher e da criança: um ensaio sobre as evidências. Cad. Saúde Pública. 2008;24:S235-46.

Bettiol H, Rona RJ, Chinn S, Goldani M, Barbieri MA. Factors associated with preterm births in southeast Brazil: a comparison of two birth cohorts born 15 years apart. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. Londres, 14(1):30-8, 2000.

Silva VLS, Santos IS, Medronha NS, Matijasevich A. Mortalidade infantil na cidade de Pelotas, estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil, no período 2005-2008: uso da investigação de óbitos na análise das causas evitáveis. Epidemiol. Serv. Saúde. 2012;21:265-274.

Lei Federal no. 11.108, de 7 de abril de 2005. Dispõe sobre o Subsistema e acompanhante durante o trabalho de parto, parto e pós-parto imediato. [legislação na internet]. Brasília; 2005. [acesso em 10 de dezembro de 2012]. Disponível em: http://www3.dataprev.gov.br/sislex/paginas/42/2005/11108.htm

Atrash HK, Carpentier R. The evolving role of public health in the delivery of health care. J. Hum. Growth Dev. 2012; 22(3): 396-399.

Descargas

Publicado

2013-08-23

Número

Vol. 23 Núm. 2 (2013)

Sección

Artigos Originais

Licencia

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis