MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2007· review· en· W1933024151 on OpenAlexaff
Anita J. Gagnon, Jane Sandall

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.001

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

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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations426
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207