SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 6

Determination of factors affecting the distress level of pregnant women: optimal scaling analysis

Emine Kurt Can(VAN YUZUNCU YIL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-4519-3286
Nesrullah Ayşin(HAKKARI UNIVERSITY, HEALTH SERVICES VOCATIONAL SCHOOL)0000-0001-7087-8810
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Routine assessment of psychosocial risks by nurses during the antenatal care process, the use of valid screening tools, and the implementation of individualized counseling and support programs for at-risk pregnant women can contribute to the early identification and reduction of distress during pregnancy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: This study was conducted to determine the levels of distress among pregnant women and to examine sociodemographic and obstetric factors associated with distress.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: This descriptive study was conducted with 386 pregnant women who visited the Obstetrics and Gynecology Outpatient Clinics at a hospital in eastern Turkey between February and June 2025.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Routine assessment of psychosocial risks by nurses during the antenatal care process, the use of valid screening tools, and the implementation of individualized counseling and support programs for at-risk pregnant women can contribute to the early identification and reduction of distress during pregnancy.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Pregnancy · distress · nursing

Abstract

Aims: This study was conducted to determine the levels of distress among pregnant women and to examine sociodemographic and obstetric factors associated with distress. Methods: This descriptive study was conducted with 386 pregnant women who visited the Obstetrics and Gynecology Outpatient Clinics at a hospital in eastern Turkey between February and June 2025. Data were collected using a Sociodemographic Data Form and the Tilburg Pregnancy Distress Scale (TPDS). Optimal Scaling Analysis was used to evaluate variables associated with Tilburg Pregnancy Distress Scale scores. Results: It was determined that 17.1% of the pregnant women experienced distress. A statistically significant and positive correlation was found between age, duration of marriage, number of pregnancies, and the “partner involvement” subscale (p <0.05). A statistically significant difference was found between employment status and pregnancy planning status and the mean scores for the Negative Affect and Partner Involvement subscales, as well as the total mean score of the Tilburg Pregnancy Distress Scale (p <0.05). Participants with a history of stillbirth were found to have statistically higher mean scores on the Tilburg Pregnancy Distress Scale and the “Negative Affect” subscale compared to those without such a history (p <0.05). Conclusion: Prenatal distress is a multidimensional condition influenced by sociodemographic and obstetric characteristics. In particular, unplanned pregnancy, employment status, and a history of stillbirth were identified as significant risk factors that increase distress levels. Routine assessment of psychosocial risks by nurses during the antenatal care process, the use of valid screening tools, and the implementation of individualized counseling and support programs for at-risk pregnant women can contribute to the early identification and reduction of distress during pregnancy.

🔖

Cite This Article

Can, E. K., Ayşin, N. (2026). Determination of factors affecting the distress level of pregnant women: optimal scaling analysis. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Volume: 9 Issue: 6. https://ajindex.com/articles/1668057

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Jalal SM, Alsebeiy SH, Alshealah NMJ. Stress, anxiety, and depression during pregnancy: a survey among antenatal women attending primary health centers. Healthcare (Basel). 2024;12(22):2227. doi:10.3390/healthcare12222227
  2. Al-Mutawtah M, Campbell E, Kubis HP, Erjavec M. Women’s experiences of social support during pregnancy: a qualitative systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):782. doi:10.1186/s12884-023-06089-0
  3. Glover V, O’Donnell KJ, O’Connor TG, Fisher J. Prenatal maternal stress, fetal programming, and mechanisms underlying later psychopathology-A global perspective. Dev Psychopathol. 2018;30(3):843-854. doi:10.1017/S095457941800038X
  4. Van den Bergh BRH, Dahnke R, Mennes M. Prenatal stress and the developing brain: risks for neurodevelopmental disorders. Dev Psychopathol. 2018;30(3):743-762. doi:10.1017/S0954579418000342
  5. James KA, Stromin JI, Steenkamp N, Combrinck MI. Understanding the relationships between physiological and psychosocial stress, cortisol and cognition. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1085950. doi:10.3389/fendo.2023.1085950
  6. Bulduk M, Kurt Can E, Can V, Ayşin N. The relationship between social support and maternal attachment of adolescent mothers and postpartum depression in Turkiye. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25(1):603. doi:10.1186/s12884-025-07703-z
  7. Wohrer F, Ngo H, DiDomenico J, Ma X, Roberts MH, Bakhireva LN. Potentially modifiable risk and protective factors affecting mental and emotional wellness in pregnancy. Front Hum Neurosci. 2024;18:1323297. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2024.1323297
  8. Aldinger JK, Abele H, Kranz A. Prenatal maternal psychological stress (PMPS) and its effect on the maternal and neonatal outcome: a retrospective cohort study. Healthcare. 2024;12(23):2431. doi:10.3390/healthcare12232431
  9. Tadanki D, Kaza PS, Meisinger E, et al. Comprehensive review of the impact of maternal stress on fetal development. Pediatr Discov. 2025;3(3):e70004. doi:10.1002/pdi3.70004
  10. Jahan N, Went TR, Sultan W, et al. Untreated depression during pregnancy and its effect on pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review. Cureus. 2021;13(8):e17251. doi:10.7759/cureus.17251
  11. Qu F, Wu Y, Zhu YH, et al. The association between psychological stress and miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1731. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-01792-3
  12. Qobadi M, Collier C, Zhang L. The effect of stressful life events on postpartum depression: findings from the 2009-2011 Mississippi pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(Suppl 1):164-172. doi:10.1007/s10995-016-2028-7
  13. Yaqoob H, Ju XD, Bibi M, Anwar S, Naz S. A systematic review of risk factors of postpartum depression. Evidence from Asian culture. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2024;249:104436. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104436
  14. Mulder R. The heart of the matter: social and cultural factors impacting mental health. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2017;51(2):113-114. doi:10.1177/0004867416688330
  15. Pop VJM, Pommer AM, Pop-Purceleanu M, Wijnen HAA, Bergink V, Pouwer F. Development of the Tilburg Pregnancy Distress Scale: the TPDS. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:80. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-11-80
  16. Çapik A, Pasinlioglu T. Validity and reliability study of the Tilburg Pregnancy Distress Scale into Turkish. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2015;22(4):260-269. doi:10.1111/jpm.12211
  17. Güriş S, Turanlı M. Basic Statistics. Istanbul: DER; 2018.
  18. Büyüköztürk Ş. Data Analysis Handbook for Social Sciences. 19th ed. Ankara: PegemA Publishing; 2012.
  19. Pallant J. SPSS Survival Manual. Open University Press; 2002.
  20. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Education; 2013.
  21. George D, Mallery P. IBM SPSS Statistics 26 step by step: a simple guide and reference. 16th ed. New York: Routledge; 2020.
  22. Greenacre M. Correspondence Analysis in Practice. New York: Academic Press; 1993.
  23. Le Roux B, Rouanet H. Multiple Correspondence Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2010.
  24. Funnell B, Bryer F, Grimbeek P, Davies M. Demographic profiling for educational researchers: using SPSS optimal scaling to identify distinct groups of participants. Educating: Weaving Research into Practice. 2004;2:94-103.
  25. Faro A, Pereira ME. Stress measures: a narrative review. Psicol Saúde Doenças. 2013;14(1):101-124. doi:10.15309/13psd140107.
  26. Alves AC, Cecatti JG, Souza RT. Resilience and stress during pregnancy: a comprehensive multidimensional approach in maternal and perinatal health. Sci World J. 2021;2021:9512854. doi:10.1155/2021/9512854
  27. Dündar T, Özsoy S, Aksu H, Toptaş B. Obstetrik özelliklerin gebelikte distres üzerine etkisi. J Anat Nurs Health Sci. 2019;22(1):17-24.
  28. Çapık A, Apay SE, Sakar T. Gebelerde distres düzeyinin belirlenmesi. J Anat Nurs Health Sci. 2015;18:3. doi:10.17049/ahsbd.97570
  29. Tuncer SK, Karakurt P, Kasımoğlu N. Gebelerde distres ile gebelikte yakınmalar ve yaşam kalitesi arasındaki ilişki. J Midwif Health Sci. 2022;5(3):114-121. doi:10.5152/JMHS.2022.221629
  30. Güleroğlu FT, Onat T. Gebelerde algılanan eş desteği ve gebelik semptomları. Gümüşhane Sağl Bil Derg. 2023;12(2):416-424. doi:10.37989/gumussagbil.1093706
  31. Can V, Bulduk M, Can EK, Ayşin N. Impact of social support and breastfeeding success on the self-efficacy levels of adolescent mothers during the postpartum period. Reprod Health. 2025;22(1):19. doi:10.1186/s12978-025-01960-z
  32. Yilmaz EB. Socio-demographic and pregnancy-related characteristics associated with prenatal distress: a Turkish study. Centr Eur J Nurs Midwif. 2019;10(3):1069.
  33. Çiltaş NY, Tuncer SK. Gebelikte distresin tanımlanması: Erzincan örneği. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Univ J Health Sci Instit. 2019;7(1):15-24. doi:10.24998/maeusabed.518546
  34. Yüksekal Z, Yurdakul M. Gebelerin eş desteği algıları ve ilişkili faktörler. TJFMPC. 2021;15(4):800-808. doi:10.21763/tjfmpc.971774
  35. Akpınar F, Apay SE. Gebelikte yaşanan distres ile gebelikteki yakınmalar ve yaşam kalitesi arasındaki ilişki. Jinekol Obstetr Neonatol Tıp Derg. 2020;17(4):550-561. doi:10.38136/jgon.683745
  36. Özbek Z, Beydağ KD. Yüksek riskli gebelerde eş desteği ve gebelik stresi arasındaki ilişki. Mersin Univ Saglık Bilim Derg. 2022;15(2):144-155. doi:10.26559/mersinsbd.950382
  37. Çelik AS, Atasever İ. Gebelerde algılanan stres düzeylerinin ve etkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi. J Anat Nurs Health Sci. 2020;23(2):267-276. doi:10.17049/ataunihem.622304
  38. González-Mesa E, Kabukcuoglu K, Körükcü O, Blasco M, Ibrahim N, Kavas T. Cultural factors influencing antenatal depression: a cross-sectional study in a cohort of Turkish and Spanish women at the beginning of the pregnancy. J Affect Disord. 2018;238:256-260. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2018.06.003
  39. Redinger S, Pearson RM, Houle B, Norris SA, Rochat TJ. Antenatal depression and anxiety across pregnancy in urban South Africa. J Affect Disord. 2020;277:296-305. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.010
  40. Keramat A, Malary M, Moosazadeh M, Bagherian N, Rajabi-Shakib MR. Factors influencing stress, anxiety, and depression among Iranian pregnant women: the role of sexual distress and genital self-image. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21:87. doi:10.1186/s12884-021-03575-1
  41. Thompson O, Ajayi I. Prevalence of antenatal depression and associated risk factors among pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in Abeokuta North Local Government Area, Nigeria. Depress Res Treat. 2016;2016:1-15. doi:10.1155/2016/4518979