A comparative study on quality of life and sexual function after vaginal delivery and Cesarean section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aim: Many changes occur during and after pregnancy which affect physical, psychological and social health and generally women's quality of life. This study aims to explore the relationship between quality of life and sexual dysfunction after delivery. Methods & Materials: This cohort study was designed to compare the relation of mode of delivery to quality of life and sexual satisfaction in 330 pregnant women referred to hospitals of Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Sexual function questionnaire including 20 questions and quality of life questionnaire including 26 questions were developed based on Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and World Health Organization life quality (WHOQOL- BREF) questionnaire, respectively. Data were analyzed through SPSS version 15 software using descriptive and analytical methods (t-test, X2 test, Fisher's exact test and analysis of variance). Results: The mean sexual function score in the vaginal delivery and Cesarean section groups were 45.25±5.59 and 45.50±6.03, respectively, which shows no significant difference. No significant difference was seen regarding the mean score of quality of life between vaginal delivery group (87.8±10.70) and Cesarean section group (88.25±11.29). Also no significant difference was seen between two groups of study, considering different aspects of life (physical, psychological, environmental and social). Conclusion: Quality of life was similar in both groups of vaginal delivery and Cesarean section. Therefore, authorities in charge of health programs can have a leading role in changing people's concept of delivery and developing a positive attitude towards vaginal delivery. This could be achieved through effective public training schedules.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".