Majumder Moutushi, Kumar G Anil, Ali Sarah Binte, Akbar Md, George Sibin, Dora Siva Prasad, Akhouri Shuchi Sree, Kumari Sweta, Singh Manoj Kumar, Mahapatra Tanmay, Dandona Rakhi
Public Health Foundation of India, Saidulajab Extension, New Delhi, 110030, India.
Piramal Swasthya Management and Research Institute, Hyderabad, India.
BMC Public Health. 2025 Apr 25;25(1):1542. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-22823-z.
We report on the experience and coping mechanism of the fathers post adverse birth outcome from a population-based representative sample in the Indian state of Bihar.
A state-representative sample of fathers of stillborn babies and babies who died within neonatal period (newborn deaths) born between July 2020 and June 2021 were interviewed. They reported on socio-demography, supportive experience and coping mechanism post birth/death of their baby, and their opinion on if their baby could have been saved. The prevalence of supportive experience, and type and prevalence of coping mechanisms by select socio-demographic characteristics is reported for them, and the prevalence of seeing, holding, and naming of the baby for the fathers of stillborn.
A total of 241 (71.5% participation) and 347 (71.2% participation) fathers of stillborn and of newborn deaths participated, respectively. Being able to talk to someone about their baby was reported by 174 (72.5%; 95% CI: 66.5-77.8) and 264 (77.0%; 95% CI: 72.2-81.1); and having received support to cope with loss by 194 (80.8%; 95% CI: 75.3-85.3) and 264 (77.0%; 95% CI: 72.2-81.1) fathers with stillborn and newborn death, respectively. Majority reported crying as a coping mechanism (70.8%; 95% CI: 64.7-76.3 for stillborn and 75.5%; 95% CI: 70.6-79.8 for newborn deaths), and aggression was the most common negative coping mechanism (29.6%; 95% CI: 24.1-35.7 for stillborn and 28.3%; 95% CI: 23.7-33.3 for newborn death). Majority were of the opinion their baby could have been saved had they gone to a higher-level health facility for delivery or medical attention (63.0% for stillborn and 67.7% for newborn death). Naming, seeing and holding of the stillborn was reported by 5.8%, 83.4% and 55% fathers who were present at the time of delivery, respectively.
This study highlights the need for perinatal bereavement strategies to be inclusive of the fathers along with the mothers and offer insights on formulation of those strategic programs.
Not applicable.
我们报告了印度比哈尔邦基于人群的代表性样本中，父亲们在不良出生结局后的经历及应对机制。
对2020年7月至2021年6月期间出生的死产婴儿和新生儿期死亡婴儿（新生儿死亡）的父亲进行了全州代表性抽样访谈。他们报告了社会人口统计学情况、婴儿出生/死亡后的支持经历和应对机制，以及他们对婴儿是否本可获救的看法。报告了他们按选定社会人口学特征划分的支持经历患病率、应对机制类型及患病率，以及死产婴儿父亲中看望、抱持和为婴儿取名的情况。
分别有241名（参与率71.5%）死产婴儿父亲和347名（参与率71.2%）新生儿死亡婴儿父亲参与。174名（72.5%；95%置信区间：66.5 - 77.8）死产婴儿父亲和264名（77.0%；95%置信区间：72.2 - 81.1）新生儿死亡婴儿父亲表示能够与他人谈论自己的孩子；分别有194名（80.8%；95%置信区间：75.3 - 85.3）死产婴儿父亲和264名（77.0%；95%置信区间：72.2 - 81.1）新生儿死亡婴儿父亲表示得到了应对丧亲之痛的支持。大多数人报告称哭泣是一种应对机制（死产婴儿父亲中为70.8%；95%置信区间：64.7 - 76.3，新生儿死亡婴儿父亲中为75.5%；95%置信区间：70.6 - 79.8），攻击行为是最常见的消极应对机制（死产婴儿父亲中为29.6%；95%置信区间：24.1 - 35.7，新生儿死亡婴儿父亲中为28.3%；95%置信区间：23.7 - 33.3）。大多数人认为，如果他们去更高层级的医疗机构分娩或接受医疗护理，孩子本可获救（死产婴儿父亲中为63.0%，新生儿死亡婴儿父亲中为67.7%）。在分娩时在场的死产婴儿父亲中，分别有5.8%、83.4%和55%的人报告为死产婴儿取名、看望和抱持过该婴儿。
本研究强调围产期丧亲策略需要将父亲纳入其中，与母亲一起考虑，并为制定这些战略项目提供见解。
不适用。
