Rebuilding psychosocial competence for unmarried adolescent pregnancies using an integrated intervention

Abstract

This study was designed to investigate effects of an integrated intervention on psychosocial competence after abortion in unmarried adolescent pregnancies. Study Group: Three hundred eighty-five unmarried adolescent pregnancies aged 15 to 24 years (75.1% employed, 24.9% students) were recruited in the study, of which 190 were allocated into the experimental group and the rests as controls. Methods: The Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (SES), the shortened version of Tyler's Behavioral Attributes of Psychosocial Competence Scale-Condensed Form (BAPC-C) and the Nowicki-Stricland InternalExternal Locus of Control Scale (NSIE-LOC) were applied to measure self-esteem, coping style, and LOC. Questionnaires were simultaneously administered with abortion service and two-months after intervention. The intervention was organized by an interactive and participatory model designed to increase self-awareness and improve ability of coping under stress with a purpose of reducing occurrence of repeat pregnancy and abortion. Results: Our data showed noticeable changes in coping style and LOC in the experimental group, except for self-esteem ability when comparing with the controls. Conclusion: The psychosocial competence was significantly improved after receiving the intervention. Our study indicates that appropriate psychological intervention for unmarried adolescent pregnancies is necessary to rebuild their normal life after the strike.

Nonpharmacological interventions to improve the psychological well‐being of women accessing abortion services and their satisfaction with care: A systematic review

“…Two studies used prospective cohort designs (Roberts et al, 2017;Veiga et al, 2011). Half of the trials recruited women undergoing surgical abortion (Chor et al, 2015;Guerrero et al, 2012;Veiga et al, 2011;Wilson et al, 2017;Wu et al, 2012), while other trials either included women having a medical abortion (Constant et al, 2014;Gerdts et al, 2020) or did not limit inclusion on type of abortion (Roberts et al, 2017;Sonalkar et al, 2017;Yu et al, 2010). Most studies presented adequate information regarding the research background, participants' eligibility criteria, randomization, baseline data, and statistical analysis.…”

“…And among eight included RCTs, only four (Chor et al, 2015; Constant et al, 2014; Gerdts et al, 2020; Guerrero et al, 2012) presented a power analysis to determine the adequate sample size for detecting a significant effect of interventions. Three RCTs (Gerdts et al, 2020; Guerrero et al, 2012; Yu et al, 2010) and one cohort study (Veiga et al, 2011) did not provide any information related to blinding or other attempts to limit bias. Moreover, only one trial (Guerrero et al, 2012) reported information on the unintended effects of the intervention.…”

“…Social support interventions were identified as social interactions that are intended to be supportive during the intervention either in person or online. Information intervention were defined as providing information or education related to abortion management (Constant et al, 2014; Gerdts et al, 2020), reproductive health skills or other health issues regarding abortion (Yu et al, 2010); specific strategies included messages by computer or telephone (Constant et al, 2014; Gerdts et al, 2020), and using printed materials and role‐play/group discussion (Yu et al, 2010). Mandatory policies were defined as mandated waiting or counseling requirements for women seeking abortion (Roberts et al, 2017; Sonalkar et al, 2017).…”

“…Among the three information interventions, two targeted women seeking medical abortion and tested the effects of information support (via text message or smartphone app) on women's self‐management through the abortion process (Constant et al, 2014; Gerdts et al, 2020). The other one was an integrated reproductive skill‐based education intervention, focusing on promoting women's self‐esteem and ability to cope with stress after an abortion (abortion type not limited) (Yu et al, 2010). The remaining two interventions did not specify abortion type and explored the impact of local abortion policies (e.g.…”

“…Most trials presented the rationale for their intervention design (Table 3). Only one intervention was based on a theoretical model (Yu et al, 2010). All the interventions only had one active component.…”