From powerlessness to empowerment: Mothers expect more than information from the prenatal consultation for preterm labour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend supportive care for all newborns >26 weeks' gestational age and recognize the importance of prenatal consultation by a neonatalogist for mothers at risk of premature delivery. These recommendations are drawn from medical expert opinions and emphasize informing parents about prematurity. The literature regarding parents' perspectives of prenatal consultation is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To explore mothers' concerns about preterm labour and their expectations from the prenatal consultation with a neonatologist. METHODS: Interviews of women hospitalized for preterm labour (26 to 32 weeks' gestation) were conducted before they met with the neonatologist. The analysis was informed by grounded theory. RESULTS: The women's stressful experience was their main focus; they expressed a strong sense of loss of control and powerlessness. The consultation was perceived as an added source of stress, but they all hoped that it would reassure them. They wanted information about prematurity and the roles they would play for their baby. They expected the neonatologist to be supportive, open and trustworthy. CONCLUSION: Prenatal consultation is perceived as a source of both stress and reassurance. Women believe the latter can be achieved through a supportive consultation with the neonatologist, during which tools providing them with a sense of empowerment are presented.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".