MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1786196897 · doi:10.1186/1471-2393-4-24

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for the management of pain in labour and childbirth [ISRCTN52287533]

2004· article· en· W1786196897 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christine L. Roberts, Camille Raynes‐Greenow, Natasha Nassar, Lyndal Trevena, Kirsten McCaffery

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineDecision aidsChildbirthRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineAnxietyNursingAlternative medicinePsychiatryPregnancySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Women report fear of pain in childbirth and often lack complete information on analgesic options prior to labour. Preferences for pain relief should be discussed before labour begins. A woman's antepartum decision to use pain relief is likely influenced by her cultural background, friends, family, the media, literature and her antenatal caregivers. Pregnant women report that information about analgesia was most commonly derived from hearsay and least commonly from health professionals. Decision aids are emerging as a promising tool to assist practitioners and their patients in evidence-based decision making.Decision aids are designed to assist patients and their doctors in making informed decisions using information that is unbiased and based on high quality research evidence. Decision aids are non-directive in the sense that they do not aim to steer the user towards any one option, but rather to support decision making which is informed and consistent with personal values. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a Pain Relief for Labour decision aid, with and without an audio-component, compared to a pamphlet in a three-arm randomised controlled trial. Approximately 600 women expecting their first baby and planning a vaginal birth will be recruited for the trial.The primary outcomes of the study are decisional conflict (uncertainty about a course of action), knowledge, anxiety and satisfaction with decision-making and will be assessed using self-administered questionnaires. The decision aid is not intended to influence the type of analgesia used during labour, however we will monitor health service utilisation rates and maternal and perinatal outcomes. This study is funded by a competitive peer-reviewed grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (No. 253635). DISCUSSION: The Pain Relief for Labour decision aid was developed using the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and systematic reviews of the evidence about the benefits and risks of the non-pharmacological and pharmacological methods of pain relief for labour. It comprises a workbook and worksheet and has been developed in two forms - with and without an audio-component (compact disc). The format allows women to take the decision aid home and discuss it with their partner.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1650.021

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207