Evaluation of Relationship between Delivery Mode and Postpartum Quality of Life

Document Type : Original Article


1 Lecturer, Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Lecturer, Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

4 Lecturer, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

5 Lecturer, Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.


Introduction:During postpartum period there are enormous changes in physical, emotional and social conditions of mothers which impact their quality of life. Although postnatal morbidity has been well documented in recent years, postnatal quality of life and its association with the mode of delivery has not been addressed. Regarding the importance of postpartum quality of life and different influential factors (including the delivery mode), the presented study was conducted to determine the relationship between the mode of delivery and quality of life among women at their second postpartum week.
Methods: In this prospective analytic study, a total of 420 women referring to health centers who had the inclusion criteria were recruited from non-probability sampling and filled the questionnaire of Edinburgh postpartum scale (EPDS) during the third trimester of pregnancy. Women who had EPDS score >12 were excluded. Afterwards, 300 cases (155 ones in normal vaginal delivery (NVD) group and 145 ones in Cesarean section (C/S)) were followed in 2nd postpartum week and their quality of life was assessed using WHOQOL BRFF. Data were analyzed using SPSS 14, and Chi-square, t-test, Mann- Whitney and Linear regression.
Results: Therewas no significant difference between two groups in their education, occupation, economic status, and wanted/unwanted pregnancy. At 2nd postpartum week, vaginal delivery group had a significantly higher means of physical domain than those of C/S (P<0.001). At 2nd postpartum week, vaginal delivery group had also a significantly higher means of psychological domain than those of C/S (P<0.02). However, There were no significant differences between these groups in their social, environmental and overall domains.
Conclusion: : Since that the physical and psychological domains of quality of life were better in the NVD group (compared to those of C/S group), consultation of health care provider for selecting the correct mode of delivery can be effective in reducing the rate of elective cesarean section along with their expenses and can improve the postpartum, quality of life.


1. Peterson S, Bredow TS. Middle range theories. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004. p.275.
2. King CR, Hinds PS. Quality of life from nursing and patient perspectives. 2nd ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett
Publishers; 2003. p.5-7,31,54.
3. Aghamolai T, Eftekhar Ardbili H. Principle of health services. 1st ed. Tehran: Andish rafie; 2005. p.66-77.
4. Tingstrom Pia R, Kamwendo K, bergdahl B. Effect of a problem based learning rehabilitation program on
quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiovascul Nurs 2005;4(4):324-30.
5. Mental Health Group of WHO. WHOQOL measuring quality of life Abuse [Online]. 2004 [Cited 1 Aug
2005];[1 Screen]. Available from:
URL: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/en/english_whoqol.pdf
6. Division of Mental health and Prevention of Substance Abuse [Online]. 1997 [Cited 1998];[1 Screen].
Available from:
URL: http://www who. Int/en tity/ mental-health/ media/68.pdf.
7. Balducci L, Lyman G, Ershler W, Extermann M. Comprehensive pediatric oncology influence of aging on
prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer. 2nd ed. London: Taylor and Francis Group; 2003. p.29.
8. Schuiling KD, Likis FE. Women's gynecologic Health. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2006. p.71.
9. Pesavento F, Marconcini E, Drago D. Quality of life and depression in normal and in high-risk pregnancy:
analysis of a sample of 100 women. Minerva Gynecol 2005;57(4):451-60.
10. Symon A, Mackay A, Ruta D. Postnatal quality of life: a pilot study using the Mother-Generated Index.
J Adv Nurs 2003;42(1):21-9. 
11. Ryan KJ, Berkwitz R, Barbien R, Duna if A. Kistner's Gynecology & women's health. 7thed. Boston:
Mosby; 1999. p.524-30.
12. Sherwen L, Scoloveno M, Weingarten C. Maternity Nursing. 3rd ed. Stamford: Appleton & Lance; 1999.
13. Varney H, Kriebs J, Gegor C. Varneyi’
s midwifery. 4th ed. Boston: Jane's and Barlett; 2004. p.1048-65.
14. Hill PD, Aldag JC, Hekel B, Riner G, Bloomfield P. Maternal post partum quality of life questionnaire.
J Nurs Meas. 2006;14(3):205-20.
15. Fraser DM, Coope MA. Myles textbook for midwifery. 14th ed. Lomdon: Gillian Fletcher; 2003. p: 653-61.
16. Jansen AJ, Duvekot JJ, Hop WC, Essink-Bot ML, Beckers EA, Karsdorp VH, et al. New insights into
fatigue and health-related quality of life after delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007;86(5):579-40.
17. Murray SS, McKinney ES, Gorrie TM. Foundations of maternal-newborn nursing. 3thed. Philadelphia:
Saunders Company; 2002. p.463-8.
18. Alimohamadian M, Shariat M, Mahmoodi M, Ramezanzadeh F. The influence of maternal request on the
elective caesarean section rate in maternity hospitals in Tehran, Iran. Payesh (Journal of Iranian Institute for
Health Sciences Research) 2003;2:133-9.
19. Cunnigham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SR, Haulth J, Gilstraplc LC, Wenstrom KO. William obstetrics.
22nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2005. p.190,592,706,708,590-92.
20. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Martin DP, Easterling TR. Association between method of delivery and
maternal re-hospitalization. JAMA 2000;283(18):2411-6.
21. Lyndon-Rochelle MT, Holt VL, Martin DP. Delivery and self-reported postpartum general health status
among primiparous women. Pediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2001;15:232-40.
22. Gerber S, Sharp L, O’toole C. Comparison of postpartum quality of life between patients with repeat
cesarean delivery and vaginal birth after cesarean. AMJ Obstet Gynecol 2003;189(6):348.
23. Alizadh M, Charandy S, Nikniaz A. Assessment problem health mothers after 6 week postpartum in tabriz
city (dissertation). Tabriz (Iran): Tabriz University of Medical Sciences; 2001.
24. Dolatian M, Mazia P, Alavi Majd H, Yazdjerdi M. The relationship between mode of delivery and
postpartum depression. J Reprod Inferil 2006;7(3):260-8.
25. Norozi M, Bashardost N, Farmhini M .Assessment of postpartum physico-sexual problems and its related
factors. Journal of Kordistan University of Medical Science 2006;8(1):102.
26. Montazeri A, Torkan B, omidvari s. The Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EDPS): translation and
validation study of the Iranian version. BMC Ppsychiatry 2007;7(11):1-6.
27. Border N. After the after birth: a critical review of postpartum health relative to method of delivery.
J Midwifery Womens Health 2006;51:242-8.
28. Scolt JR Gibbs RS, karlan B, Hakey AF. Danforth,s obstetrics and gynecology. 1st ed. Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2003. p.47,449.
29. Clement S. psychychological aspects of caesarean section best practive & Research clinical. Obstetrics &
Gynecology 2001;15:109-29.
30. Osis MJ, Paduaks, Duarte GA, Souzatr, Faunde SA. The opinion of Brazilian women regarding vaginal
labor and cesarean section. In J Gynecol Obstet 2001;75(1):59-66.
31. Schytt E, Lindmark G, waldenstrom u. Physical symptoms after child birth: prevalence and associations
with self-rated health. BJOJ 2005; 112:210-217.