Abstract
Objective: The present study aims to examine childbirth self-efficacy levels with potential moderating variables.
Methods: The systematic searches were conducted in nine databases in July 2019. The PRISMA checklist was used. The quality of studies was evaluated by two researchers. The random-effect model was used in the present meta-analysis. The heterogeneity tests and moderator analyses were performed. There were 18 eligible articles.
Results: Results indicated that childbirth self-efficacy levels do not change based on parity (Q = 0.784, p = 0.376 for efficacy expectancy, Q = 0.190, p = 0.663 for outcome expectancy). The between-study variance was not significant for subdimensions of CBSEI (Qb = 1.531, p = .216), which means no significant difference between OE and EE levels was found. The between-study variance was not significant for OE levels (Qb = 0.333, p = .847), which means no significant difference was found between Outcome-AL, Outcome-SS, and OE-16. The moderator analysis, including Efficacy-AL, Efficacy-SS, and EE-16 presented a higher pooled mean score for EE-16 (111.56; 95% CI = 98.66 to 124.46). However, the between-study variance was not significant for EE levels (Qb = 4.240, p = .120). Despite the moderator analysis, the finding of high heterogeneity suggests the need for further studies which examine the concept of childbirth self-efficacy with additional variables.
Conclusion: The study presents that childbirth self-efficacy levels do not change based on parity, stages of labor and subdimensions of CBSEI. Researchers need to examine the concept of childbirth self-efficacy with new variables for further clarify of concept.
Keywords: Childbirth self-efficacy, meta-analysis, normal birth, pregnant women, healthcare professionals, labor.
Graphical Abstract
12