The effectiveness of prenatal intervention on pain and anxiety during the process of Childbirth-Northern Iran: Clinical trial study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the painful nature of childbirth and its maternal and neonatal complications, the woman needs support in this phase of their life. Increased knowledge and skills during pregnancy prepares pregnant mothers for labor and leads to promoted health. AIM: This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of "prenatal education" on the process of childbirth. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This clinical trial was conducted on 195 pregnant women, that is, control group (N = 132) and case group (N = 63) attending health centers in Amol-Iran from 20 weeks of gestation age during 2012. Case group members attended in "prenatal education" class and the control group only received routine care. Data were collected through demographic questionnaire, standard hospital anxiety questionnaire, and a checklist related to childbirth information, and intensity of pain based on visual analogue scale and McGill scales. The data were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software using t-test and Chi-square test. RESULTS: The result of this study showed that the parent with a high level of education was more interested to participant in prenatal classes. The anxiety level in case group (who received education) was 14.47 (4.69) and in control group it was 16 (4.86), (P < 0.001) the pain intensity in case group was 85.68 (1.85) and in control group was 90.99 (14.72) (P = 0.03), intervention on labor such episiotomy was 39 %66.1 (39/63) in case group and 80 %72.8 (80/132) in control group (P = 0.01) and cesarean section was 13 %17.1 (13/63) in case group and 58 %32.2 (58/132) in control group (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: According to findings of this study, the prenatal education and psychological support are beneficial for mothers during pregnancy and labor. Therefore, it is recommended for educating all the pregnant women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".