RNSystematic ReviewNursing open2021

A systematic review of clinical trials affecting anxiety, stress and fear of childbirth in expectant fathers.

Seyedeh Fatemeh Ghaffari, Forouzan Elyasi, Seyed Nouraddin Mousavinasab and 1 others

PMID 34102022

WHAT IT FOUND

Clinical trials for expectant fathers' childbirth anxiety, stress and fear gave mixed results.

Some education, music and massage trials reported lower anxiety or fear, but evidence was too varied to show which works best.

Key findings

01The review could not show that any one intervention was better than another.

02Some trials reported lower fathers' childbirth fear or anxiety after antenatal education, music, massage or lifestyle education.

03Other trials reported no significant effect on fathers' stress or anxiety, including one antenatal education trial and Baby Triple P.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only published data were included, so unpublished negative results may be missing. The eight trials varied in quality: four were low risk of bias and four high risk. The trials enrolled different groups of fathers and had very different sample sizes, so results may not transfer to all expectant fathers. Anxiety, stress and fear of childbirth were defined and measured differently across trials, so no meta-analysis could be performed. Some fear measures were researcher-made or culture-based, and one standard childbirth fear scale was originally developed for women.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences was named as the funder.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this review as proof that a specific programme will reduce fathers' childbirth anxiety, stress or fear. The included trials used different definitions and measures, four were high risk of bias, and the review could not show one intervention was best.

Read it on PubMed →