Journal List > Korean J Women Health Nurs > v.23(2) > 1089561

TOOLS
Park and Sung: Effects of Music Therapy on Stress of Preterm Labor and Uterine Contraction in Pregnant Women with Preterm Labor
Original Article

Korean J Women Health Nurs 2017;23(2):109-116.

Published online: 17 June 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2017.23.2.109

Effects of Music Therapy on Stress of Preterm Labor and Uterine Contraction in Pregnant Women with Preterm Labor

Hye-Jin Park1, Mi-Hae Sung2,

1Haeundae Baik Hospital, Busan, Korea

2Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Inje University, Busan, Korea

Corresponding author: Sung, Mi-Hae Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Inje University, 75 Bokji-ro, Busanjin-gu, Busan 47392, Korea. Tel: +82-51-890-6825, Fax: +82-51-896-9840, E-mail: nursmh@inje.ac.kr

Received 27 February 201717 April 2017       Accepted 8 June 2017

Copyright © 2017 Korean Society of Women Health Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to test effects of music therapy on stress due to preterm labor and uterine contraction in pregnant women with preterm labor.

Methods

An experimental research design was used. Participants were 35 pregnant women with preterm labor who were between 20 to 37 weeks of pregnancy: control group (n=18) received only tocolytic drugs, while experimental group (n=17) received additional music therapy. In the experimental group, Traumerei was applied before Non-Stress Test (NST) from the second day to fifth day after admission as music therapy.

Results

There was a statistically significant difference in stress due to preterm labor (z=-3.368, p<.001) between the two groups.

Conclusion

The music therapy is an effective method for reducing the stress of pregnant women with preterm labor.

Keywords: Preterm labor, Pregnant women, Stress, Music therapy, Uterine contraction

REFERENCES

1. Kim A, Ma JY. Overview for the management of preterm labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science. 2007; 50(1):5–15.
2. Shin JC. Recent trends in management of preterm labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science. 2006; 49(7):1403–1411.
3. Moon EH, Kim JY, Jeung MK, Son HM, Oh JA. Anxiety-depression and maternal fetal attachment behaviors of pregnant women with preterm labor and normal pregnant women. Korean Parent-Child Health Journal. 2006; 9(2):128–139.
4. Hwang RH. Relationship between maternal fetal attachment and state anxiety of pregnant women in the preterm labor. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2013; 19(3):142–152.
crossref
5. Kim JY. Imagery-centered music listening on physiological and psychological relaxation of women with high-risk pregnancy [master's thesis]. Seoul: Ewha Womans University;2010. p. 89.
6. Kim IS, Kim HS, Lee MH. Effects of music therapy on anxiety and distress in patients taking thoracentesis. Journal of East-West Nursing Research. 2011; 17(2):103–109.
7. Kwun YS, Kim TH. The effect of music therapy on anxiety of cesarean section women. Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. 2000; 7(3):466–478.
8. Chang SB, Park HJ, Bae CH, Shim JO. The effect of abdominal breathing on preterm labor anxiety and frequency of uterine contraction. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 2007; 13(3):31–41.
9. Yu WJ, Song JE. Effects of abdominal breathing on state anxiety, stress, and tocolytic dosage for pregnant women in pre-term labor. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2010; 40(3):442–452.
crossref
10. Choi MS, Park YJ. The effect of relaxation therapy on anxiety and stress of pregnant women with preterm labor. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2010; 16(4):336–347.
11. Yang M, Li L, Zhu H, Alexander IM, Liu S, Zhou W, et al. Music therapy to relieve anxiety in pregnant women on bedrest: A randomized, controlled trial. American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing. 2009; 34(5):316–323.
12. Federico GF, Whitwell GE. Music therapy and pregnancy. Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health. 2001; 15(4):299–312.
13. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. 2nd ed.New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;1988. p. 553–558.
14. Kim SJ. The effects of the abdominal breathing through music to reduce tension and anxiety for pregnant women who has premature contractions [master's thesis]. Seoul: Sookmyung Women's University;2012. p. 51.
15. Choi BC. Music therapy. Seoul: Hakjisa;2002. p. 349.
16. Grocke DE, Grocke D, Wigram T. Receptive methods in music therapy: Techniques and clinical applications for music therapy clinicians, educators and students. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers;2007. p. 271.
17. Kim MK. Change of stress and nursing needs after admission in preterm labor [master's thesis]. Inchon: Inha University;2007. p. 68.
18. Mackinnon K. Living with the threat of preterm labor: Women's work of keeping the baby in. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing. 2006; 35(6):700–708.
crossref
19. Freeman RK, Thomas JG, Nageotte MP, Miller LA. Fetal heart rate monitoring. 4th ed.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2012. p. 271.
20. Kim MK, Lee YW, Cho IS, Lim JY. Change of stress and nursing needs after hospitalization in preterm labor women. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2009; 15(1):24–31.
crossref

Figure 1.
Process of this study.
kjwhn-23-109f1.tif
Table 1.
Homogeneity Test for General Characteristics of Subjects (N=35)
Characteristics Categories Total (n=35) Cont. (n=18) Exp. (n=17) x2 p
n (%) n (%) n (%)
Age (yr)† ＜30 9 (25.7) 5 (27.8) 4 (23.5)   1.000
≥30 26 (74.3) 13 (72.2) 13 (76.5)    
Occupation Yes 17 (48.6) 9 (50.0) 8 (47.1) 0.03 .862
No 18 (51.4) 9 (50.0) 9 (52.9)    
Education† ≤High school 6 (17.1) 4 (22.2) 2 (11.8)   .658
≥College 29 (82.9) 14 (77.8) 15 (88.2)    
Monthly income ≤400 16 (45.7) 9 (50.0) 7 (41.2) 0.27 .600
(10,000 won) ＞400 19 (54.3) 9 (50.0) 10 (58.8)    

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group;

† Fisher's exact test.

Table 2.
Homogeneity Test for Stress related to Preterm Labor and Frequency of Uterine Contraction at Pretest (N=35)
Variables Categories Total (N=35) Cont. (n=18) Exp. (n=17) t or z (p)
M±SD M±SD M±SD
Stress Total† 2.14±0.38 2.07±0.38 2.22±0.38 -1.07 (.287)
Fetal 2.68±0.62 2.54±0.54 2.83±0.68 -1.41 (.166)
Maternal 2.33±0.41 2.23±0.38 2.45±0.42 -1.63 (.112)
Spouse 1.90±0.60 1.85±0.57 1.96±0.64 -0.53 (.600)
Hospital settings† 2.07±0.53 1.95±0.53 2.18±0.51 -1.09 (.287)
Treatment† 1.96±0.61 1.98±0.62 1.94±0.62 -0.39 (.708)
Communication† 1.51±0.49 1.54±0.38 1.48±0.60 -1.02 (.318)
Frequency of uterine contraction† 2.89±0.96 2.78±0.88 3.00±1.06 -0.36 (.732)

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group;

† Mann-Whitney test.

Table 3.
Differences in Stress related to Preterm Labor between Two Groups (N=35
Variables Categories Group Pretest Posttest Difference t or z (p)
M±SD M±SD M±SD
Stress related to preterm labor Total‡ Cont. 2.07±0.38 2.02±0.34 0.04±0.24 -3.36 (.001)†
Exp. 2.22±0.38 1.77±0.35 0.44±0.36  
Fetal Cont. 2.54±0.54 2.34±0.57 0.20±0.72 -2.26 (.030)
Exp. 2.83±0.68 2.16±0.61 0.67±0.49  
Patient Cont. 2.23±0.38 2.24±0.35 -0.02±0.34 -3.49 (.001)
Exp. 2.45±0.42 2.02±0.52 0.42±0.40  
Spouse Cont. 1.85±0.57 1.81±0.70 0.04±0.41 -1.80 (.080)
Exp. 1.96±0.64 1.64±0.51 0.32±0.52  
Hospital settings‡ Cont. 1.95±0.53 1.95±0.40 0.00±0.38 -2.61 (.008)†
Exp. 2.18±0.51 1.69±0.35 0.50±0.56  
Treatment‡ Cont. 1.98±0.62 1.86±0.51 0.12±0.43 -1.69 (.096)†
Exp. 1.94±0.62 1.50±0.35 0.44±0.55  
Communication‡ Cont. 1.54±0.38 1.53±0.42 0.01±0.31 -1.47 (.163)†
Exp. 1.48±0.60 1.21±0.28 0.27±0.50  

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group;

† Mann-Whitney U test;

‡ Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranks test.

Table 4.
Difference in Frequency of Uterine Contraction between Two Groups (N=35)
Variables Group Pretest Posttest Difference z (p)†
M±SD M±SD M±SD
Frequency of uterine contraction Cont. 2.78±0.88 2.44±0.92 0.33±0.49 -0.56 (.613)
Exp. 3.00±1.06 2.65±1.00 0.35±0.49  

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group;

† Mann-Whitney U test.

TOOLS
Similar articles