MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4367312951 · doi:10.11124/jbies-22-00246

Experiences of women who have planned unassisted home births in high-resource countries: a qualitative systematic review

2023· review· en· W4367312951 sur OpenAlexaff
Danielle Macdonald, Melissa Helwig, Erna Snelgrove‐Clarke

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2023
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Établissements canadiensKellogg's (Canada)Dalhousie UniversityQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésResource (disambiguation)Qualitative researchMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to identify, appraise, and synthesize the qualitative evidence about the experiences of women in high-resource countries who have planned unassisted home births. INTRODUCTION: Unassisted birth occurs when a woman chooses to give birth without the assistance of health care providers. These births are planned and usually occur in a woman's home. It is difficult to know the prevalence of unassisted birth because it occurs at the margins of health care systems, making data difficult to collect. Based on its lack of visibility in society, we assume that unassisted birth is not a common birth choice. Women who choose planned unassisted birth may face stigma for their decision and their experience of birth, which challenge accepted norms. Synthesizing qualitative evidence about women's experiences of planned unassisted birth can improve our understanding about women's birthing values and provide important clues about aspects of birthing care that may be missing in mainstream birthing services. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies that explored the experiences of women who had planned unassisted home births without the support of health care providers in high-resource countries were included. Unassisted home births were defined as those that were planned not to be assisted by health care professionals. Study designs that focused on qualitative data were eligible for inclusion. METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest), and Nursing and Allied Health Database (ProQuest) were searched in 2022. Studies published in English since the databases' inception were considered for inclusion. A search of relevant websites for unpublished and gray literature was also undertaken in 2022. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of papers identified for inclusion. Qualitative research findings were extracted from papers that met the inclusion criteria and critical appraisal standard. Findings were extracted and categorized based on similarity of meaning. The categories were synthesized to create 2 synthesized findings, and the ConQul approach was used to grade the findings to establish confidence in the synthesized findings. RESULTS: Six studies were included in the review. All the studies used interviews for data collection; other methods included surveys, email correspondence, posts on internet discussion boards and forums, and websites. The total sample size for interviews was 103 participants. Total survey sample size for surveys was 87 participants. Total sample size for email correspondence was 5. Internet data sources included more than 100,000 individual and forum posts and 127 birth stories. A total of 17 findings were extracted and grouped into 4 categories. The 4 categories were then synthesized into 2 synthesized findings: i) navigating tensions within self, and between self and systems, and ii) integrating and transcending physical experiences of birth. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to better understand the experiences of women who have planned unassisted births. Improving understanding and increasing the awareness of planned unassisted birth are necessary steps for promoting inclusive, relational, and person-centered birthing experiences for everyone. Reflection about the differences between planned unassisted births and mainstream births may support needed reorientations of perinatal services. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019125242. SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT: A French-language version of the abstract of this review is available [ http://links.lww.com/SRX/A9 ].

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,034
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0090,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,390
Écart entre enseignants0,346 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations2
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetGlobal Maternal and Child HealthTravaux en français237 207