MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Individual or group antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood, or both

2007· review· en· W1933024151 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildbirthMedicineBreastfeedingPsychological interventionPsycINFOAnxietyPregnancySocial supportRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineCINAHLCoping (psychology)NursingMEDLINEPsychiatryPsychologyPediatricsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Structured antenatal education programs for childbirth or parenthood, or both, are commonly recommended for pregnant women and their partners by healthcare professionals in many parts of the world. Such programs are usually offered to groups but may be offered to individuals. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of this education on knowledge acquisition, anxiety, sense of control, pain, labour and birth support, breastfeeding, infant-care abilities, and psychological and social adjustment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2006), CINAHL (1982 to April 2006), ERIC (1984 to April 2006), EMBASE (1980 to April 2006) and PsycINFO (1988 to April 2006). We handsearched the Journal of Psychosomatic Research from 1956 to April 2006 and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of any structured educational program provided during pregnancy by an educator to either parent that included information related to pregnancy, birth or parenthood. The educational interventions could have been provided on an individual or group basis. Educational interventions directed exclusively to either increasing breastfeeding success, knowledge of and coping skills concerning postpartum depression, improving maternal psycho-social health including anxiety, depression and self-esteem or reducing smoking were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors assessed trial quality and extracted data from published reports. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials, involving 2284 women, were included. Thirty-seven studies were excluded. Educational interventions were the focus of eight of the studies (combined n = 1009). Details of the randomization procedure, allocation concealment, and/or participant accrual or loss for these trials were not reported. No consistent results were found. Sample sizes were very small to moderate, ranging from 10 to 318. No data were reported concerning anxiety, breastfeeding success, or general social support. Knowledge acquisition, sense of control, factors related to infant-care competencies, and some labour and birth outcomes were measured. The largest of the included studies (n = 1275) examined an educational and social support intervention to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section. This high-quality study showed similar rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section in 'verbal' and 'document' groups (relative risk 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.21). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of general antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood, or both, remain largely unknown. Individualized prenatal education directed toward avoidance of a repeat caesarean birth does not increase the rate of vaginal birth after caesarean section.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.271
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.218 · 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