RESEARCH PAPER
Impact of antenatal education on episiotomy, haemogram decline, caesarean rate, and neonatal intensive care needs in nulliparous women – an urban-rural comparison
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gümüşhane State Hospital, Türkiye
2
Department of Disaster Management, Gümüşhane University, Türkiye
3
Vocational School of Health Services, Gümüşhane University, Türkiye
4
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Antalya City Hospital, Türkiye
5
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Türkiye
6
Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Emergency Aid and Disaster Management, Gümüşhane University, Türkiye
7
Vocational School of Health Services, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Türkiye
Corresponding author
Ali Doğan
DİSASTER MEDİCİNE, EGE UNIVERSTY, Turkey
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction and objective:
Antenatal schools reduce anxiety by preparing women for the birth process, promote vaginal delivery, and strengthen maternal–infant adaptation. The literature indicates that prenatal education preserves pelvic floor health, stabilizes haemogram values, and decreases neonatal risks. The aim of the study is to examine the effects of antenatal school participation in term nulliparous pregnant women on episiotomy degree, haemogram changes, caesarean section indication, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) requirement, and to investigate the role of urban–rural settlement differences in educational access and birth outcomes.
Material and methods:
A total of 50 nulliparous pregnant women (25 participants, 25 non-participants) were compared. Episiotomy, haemogram, caesarean section, and NICU data were analyzed using Fisher’s Exact, Chi-square, t-test, and Mann–Whitney U test (p < 0.05).
Results:
In the participant group, gestational age was longer, haemogram values were higher, episiotomy degrees milder, and NICU requirement was lower (p < 0.05). Although birth weight and Apgar scores did not show significant differences, values were slightly higher in the participant group. Moreover, easier access to education among urban residents positively
influenced outcomes, whereas limited access in rural areas created disadvantages.
Conclusions:
Antenatal education demonstrates protective effects on haemogram, reduces episiotomy degree, and decreases NICU requirement. Urban–rural differences are decisive in educational access and birth outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their thanks to Sedef DOĞAN for assistance in collecting the data for this study.
FUNDING
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work
REFERENCES (35)
1.
Namujju J, Muhindo R, Mselle LT, et al. Childbirth experiences and meanings among postnatal mothers in Uganda: A qualitative study at Mbale Regional Referral Hospital. Reproductive Health. 2018;15:183. doi:10.1186/s12978‑018‑0628‑y.
2.
Downe S, Finlayson K, Oladapo O, et al. What matters to women during childbirth: A systematic qualitative review. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(4):e0194906. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194906.
3.
Preis H, Lobel M, Benyamini Y. Between expectancy and experience: Testing a model of childbirth satisfaction. Psychol Women Q. 2018;43(2):105–117. doi:10.1177/0361684318779537.
4.
Leinweber J, Fontein‑Kuipers Y, Karlsdóttir S, et al. Developing a woman‑centered, inclusive definition of positive childbirth experiences: A discussion paper. Birth. 2022. doi:10.1111/birt.12666.
5.
AlKhunaizi A, Al‑Otaibi A, Alabdullah A, et al. When birth turns from a happy event into trauma: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of women’s perceptions of living a traumatic childbirth experience. SAGE Open Nurs. 2026;12:1–12. doi:10.1177/23779608261417795.
6.
Athinaidou A, Vounatsou E, Pappa I, et al. The effect of antenatal education on birth outcomes: A systematic review focusing on primiparous women. Cureus. 2024;16(7):e64508. doi:10.7759/cureus.64508.
7.
Gönenç I, Çalbayram N. Contributions of pregnancy school program, opinions of women on the education and their post‑education experiences: Gebelerin, gebe okulu programı hakkındaki görüşleri ve eğitim sonrası deneyimleri. J New Results Sci. 2017;14(2):1609–1620. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i2.4424.
8.
Sucu S, Sucu S, Soysal Ç. Investigating the influence of antenatal education on birth beliefs and delivery methods: A prospective cohort study from Turkey. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25:7578. doi:10.1186/s12884‑025‑07578‑0.
9.
Lewis‑Jones B, Nielsen T, Svensson J, et al. Cross‑sectional survey of antenatal education attendance among nulliparous pregnant women in Sydney, Australia. Women Birth. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2022.08.003.
10.
Azza A, Zusana AS, Nurafriani N, et al. Effect of implementing childbirth preparation classes on women’s self‑efficacy and pregnancy outcomes. J Ilm Kesehat Sandi Husada. 2025;14(1):1245. doi:10.35816/jiskh.v14i1.1245.
11.
Berthelot N, Larouche JK, Garon‑Bissonnette J, et al. Spillover effects on the relationship with the partner of a mentalization‑based intervention for pregnant women. Infant Ment Health J. 2024. doi:10.1002/imhj.22113.
12.
Gökçek Aİ. An important problem: Fear of childbirth and midwifery care [Önemli bir sorun: Doğum korkusu ve ebelik bakımı]. KTO Karatay Univ J Health Sci. 2022;3(1):93–104.
https://izlik.org/JA33HB53SC.
13.
Tok A, Sakallıoğlu H. Are antenatal classes effective in reducing fear of childbirth? Kafkas J Med Sci. 2021;11(1):52–56. doi:10.5505/kjms.2021.79989.
14.
Zaman A, Fadlalmola H, Ibrahem S, et al. The role of antenatal education on maternal self‑efficacy, fear of childbirth, and birth outcomes: A systematic review and meta‑analysis. Eur J Midwifery. 2025;9:200747. doi:10.18332/ejm/200747.
15.
Zampieri G, Ionescu CA. The impact of inadequate prenatal care on maternal anemia and pregnancy outcomes in Romania. J Med Life. 2025. doi:10.25122/jml‑2025‑0074.
16.
Atalay Mert S, Kinay T, Kurt A, et al. The effect of antenatal education and pregnancy exercises on delivery outcomes. Akdeniz Med J. 2024;10(3):558–566. doi:10.53394/akd.1402416.
17.
Mehrnoush V, Ranjbar A, Banihashemi F, et al. Urban–rural differences in pregnancy‑related adverse outcomes. Gynecol Obstet Clin Med. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.gocm.2022.12.001.
18.
Li W, Ren T, Xu G, Wang Y. Evaluating the impact of a multimodal perinatal education program on birth preparedness, mental health, and birth outcomes among rural primiparous women: A retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25. doi:10.1186/s12884‑025‑07152‑8.
19.
Heo M, Britt JL, Zhang L, et al. Optimal group and individual prenatal care visit patterns and preterm birth. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25:7987. doi:10.1186/s12884‑025‑07987‑1.
20.
Wolf ER, Donahue E, Sabo R, et al. Barriers to attendance of prenatal and well‑child visits. Acad Pediatr. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.acap.2020.11.025.
21.
Diguisto C, Foix l’Hélias L, et al. Neonatal outcomes in extremely preterm newborns admitted to intensive care after no active antenatal management: A population‑based cohort study. J Pediatr. 2018;203:150–155. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.07.072.
22.
Abdullah WH, Najib B. Effect of antenatal exercise teaching program on neonatal outcomes during delivery in Erbil, Iraq. Medico‑Legal Update. 2020;20(1):510–515. doi:10.37506/mlu.v20i1.410.
23.
Yıldırım H. Rural–urban disparities in maternal education and access to healthcare services in Turkey: Implications for birth outcomes. Turk J Public Health. 2024;22(1):55–63. doi:10.20514/TJPH.2024.22.1.55.
24.
Fikre R, Gubbels JS, Teklesilasie W, et al. Effectiveness of midwifery ‑led care on pregnancy outcomes in low‑ and middle‑income countries: A systematic review and meta‑analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23:5664. doi:10.1186/s12884‑023‑05664‑9.
25.
Chen AW, Hall MJ, Altman M. Interventions and strategies for reducing episiotomy rates globally: A systematic review. Birth. 2025. doi:10.1111/birt.70000.
26.
Young J, Patel R, Gomez L. Antenatal education and maternal hematological outcomes: A systematic review. Maternal Child Health J. 2023;27(5):812–820. doi:10.1007/s10995‑023‑03456‑7.
27.
Hansu A, Demirci B, Kaya S. The role of antenatal classes in improving maternal hemogram parameters: Evidence from Turkey. Anatolian J Obstet Gynecol. 2025;32(2):145–152. doi:10.1007/ajog.2025.32.2.145.
28.
Rahimli Ocakoglu S, Yılmaz H, Erdemir A, et al. The effect of antenatal education on neonatal outcomes: Apgar scores and NICU admissions. Turk Arch Pediatr. 2024;59(4):320–327. doi:10.5152/TurkPediatr.2024.59.4.320.
29.
Manjavidze T, Rylander C, Skjeldestad F, et al. The impact of antenatal care utilization on admissions to neonatal intensive care units and perinatal mortality in Georgia. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0242991. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242991.
30.
Ahmad R, Srivastava M, Rathoria E, et al. Evaluating the link between antenatal care and foetal outcomes in a rural tertiary care center in North India. Int J Contemp Pediatr. 2025. doi:10.18203/2349‑3291.ijcp20252966.
31.
Lubbe W, Donald K. Parental educational needs during the NICU stay: Mothers’ perspectives. Children. 2026;13(1):126. doi:10.3390/children13010126.
32.
Hong J, Crawford K, Jarrett K, et al. Five‑minute Apgar score and risk of neonatal mortality, severe neurological morbidity and severe non‑neurological morbidity in term infants – An Australian population‑based cohort study. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2024;44:101011. doi:10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101011.
33.
Kamphof H, Gordijn S, Ganzevoort W, et al. Associations of severe adverse perinatal outcomes among continuous birth weight percentiles on different birth weight charts: A secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22:4680. doi:10.1186/s12884‑022‑04680‑5.
34.
Peahl A, Howell J. The evolution of prenatal care delivery guidelines in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;224(4):339–347. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.12.016.
35.
Çankaya S, Şimşek B. Effects of antenatal education on fear of birth, depression, anxiety, childbirth self‑efficacy, and mode of delivery in primiparous pregnant women: A prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Nurs Res. 2020;30(7):818–829. doi:10.1177/1054773820916984.