MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2031227005 · doi:10.1080/00016340601124144

Women's experiences of giving birth in Northwest Russia in 2000 and 2002 and in Northern Norway 2000

2007· article· en· W2031227005 sur OpenAlexaff
Eli Heiberg, Svetlana Skurtveit, Elisabet Helsing, Beverley Chalmers

Notice bibliographique

RevueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesUNICEF
Mots-clésNorwegianMedicinePsychological interventionMaternity careDemographyPromotion (chess)Family medicineHealth carePediatricsNursingEconomic growthPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Since 1994, Norway has supported health care projects in the Russian part of the Barents Region, some specifically directed towards the wellbeing of mothers and babies 1-4. A WHO/UNICEF-initiated Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (1994–1999) was followed by the project Family Friendly Maternity Care (1999–2003), focusing on evidence-based and family-centered birth practices, as advocated in the WHO-Euro program Promotion of Effective Perinatal Care. To compare birth practices in designated baby friendly (BF) institutions with traditional care institutions (NBF) in 2000 and 2002, in the Archangelsk and Murmansk regions, compared with maternity institutions (all BF) in Northern Norway. The ‘Women's Experience of Birth’ questionnaire 5 was used as the basis for two cross-sectional questionnaire studies. Five maternity institutions in Northwest Russia in 2000 and 2002 (n = 528), were compared with 7 maternity institutions in Northern Norway in 2000 (n = 382). Full anonymity and confidentiality were assured 4. The response rate in Russia was 91% in 2000, and 76% in 2002, the Norwegian rate was 61%. Around 80% of the Russian women were <30 years of age, compared to 50% of the Norwegians. Approximately two-thirds of the Russian women in both 2000 and 2002 were primiparae, compared to only one-third of the Norwegian women. Parity did not change the emerging pattern of interventions. Table I shows birth practices experienced during labor and delivery. Medical interventions, such as amniotomy, induction, augmentation of labor, etc., declined in Russia between 2000 and 2002. Desegregated into BF or NBF, the institutions showed differing trends. In 2000, the above mentioned interventions were more frequently used in both BF and NBF institutions in Russia than in Norwegian institutions. In 2002, the Russian BF institutions continued this practices, while the NBF reduced them, thus becoming more in line with practices in Northern Norway. The rate of cesarean section was twice as high in the Russian NBF, than in BF. In the sample from Northern Norway, the rate of caesarean section was 11%, equal to BF in Russia in 2002 (Table I). In 2000, 35% of women at the BF and 15% at the NBF institutions had a relative or someone close to them present at birth, compared to 95% of the Norwegian women (Table I). The possibility for fathers or any other close relative to be together with the mother and the baby in the first hours after birth decreased in the BF institutions from 33% in 2000, to 17% in 2002. In the NBF institutions, this possibility increased from 12 to 25% (Table I). In 2002, more than half of the women in the BF institutions and one-third of women in the NBF institutions answered that they did not want anyone to be around (data not shown). It seems important that, in the future, the BF Hospital Initiative pay attention not only to breastfeeding, but also to its context, ie, the whole childbearing process, ensuring both clinical safety and psychological comfort to the mother-baby dyad. This study was part of a collaborative project between Norway and Northwest Russia funded by the Barents Health Program 1999–2003, through the Norwegian Health Care Department. Special thanks go to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo for hosting the Norwegian part of the project. In relation to this particular article, we thank Professor emeritus Per Bergsjø for valuable professional comments.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,148
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,294

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,270
Écart entre enseignants0,255 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica ScandinavicaMême sujetBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesTravaux en français237 207