Providing Responsive NURSING CARE to New Mothers With High and Low Confidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe new mothers' experiences with family-centered maternity care in relation to their confidence level and to determine how care could have been more responsive to their needs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using data from a prospective Canadian survey of 596 postpartum women, a subsample of women with low and high confidence (N = 74) was selected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: Women with both high and low confidence expressed negative experiences with similar frequency (n = 47/74, 64%). Women wanted more nursing support for breastfeeding and postpartum teaching and education. Women who reported a language other than English or French as their first language were significantly less confident than English- and French-speaking women (p < .05). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A multilevel framework about family-centered care is presented for healthcare providers in prenatal, labor and birth, and postpartum care. It is recommended that nurses ask new mothers about their confidence level and give special consideration to cultural background in order to provide supportive care in hospital and community settings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".