Unique perspectives of women and their partners using the Prenatal Psychosocial Profile Scale
Article first published online: 28 MAR 2011
© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Volume 67, Issue 8, pages 1767–1778, August 2011
How to Cite
Yu, M., McElory, J. A., Bullock, L. F.C. and Everett, K. D. (2011), Unique perspectives of women and their partners using the Prenatal Psychosocial Profile Scale. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67: 1767–1778. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05628.x
- Issue published online: 15 JUL 2011
- Article first published online: 28 MAR 2011
- Accepted for publication 15 January 2011
Vol. 70, Issue 5, 1204, Article first published online: 2 APR 2014
- principal component analysis;
- psychosocial health;
- stress in pregnancy
yu m., mcelory j.a., bullock l.f.c. & everett k.d. (2011) Unique perspectives of women and their partners using the Prenatal Psychosocial Profile Scale. Journal of Advanced Nursing 67(8), 1767–1778.
Aim. This paper is a report of a study to examine the underlying factors of the Prenatal Psychosocial Profile as a composite measure of stress, support from partner, support from others and self-esteem; and compares factor structures between pregnant women and men.
Background. In order to promote positive pregnancy outcomes, addressing unique differences in psychosocial factors between women and men is important. There is very little information or data directly collected from both groups.
Methods. As part of a larger smoking cessation study during pregnancy, a sample of 66 low-income couples (n = 132) living in rural Missouri – the Midwestern region of the United States of America – was selected between 2006 and 2008. Principal component analysis was used to evaluate the factor structure of the composite measure.
Results. Similarities and unique differences in the Prenatal Psychosocial Profile subscales between the two groups were found. For the stress subscale, ‘problems related to family’, ‘the current pregnancy’ and ‘feeling generally overloaded’ loaded as financial stressors for men but as emotional stressors for women. For the partner support subscale, women perceived they were receiving more tangible support from their partners whereas men perceived receiving more emotional support. The support from others subscale was similar for both partners. The self-worth factor explained more of the variance in self-esteem among pregnant women, while the self-criticism factor explained more of the variance among men.
Conclusion. Assessment of psychosocial well-being in both women and men during pregnancy, especially careful assessment of stressors of pregnancy should be part of nursing practice.