Women's Views of Their Experiences in the CHIPS (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study) Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Satisfaction with maternity care is strongly related to the patient-caregiver relationship and involvement in the decision-making process. We sought to compare women's views about their care in a randomized trial of 'less tight' vs. 'tight' control of non-proteinuric pre-existing or gestational hypertension in pregnancy. METHODS: In the CHIPS Pilot Trial, women completed a postpartum questionnaire to assess their likes and dislikes about their blood pressure (BP) management and trial participation. Comparisons were descriptive. RESULTS: Baseline information was similar for the 'less tight' and 'tight' control groups. Of 132 women, 126 (95.5%) from 17 centers completed a postpartum questionnaire, usually within days of delivery. At least 90% of women in both groups were satisfied with their care, and would be willing to participate again or recommend participation to a friend. Women in both the 'less tight' and 'tight' groups were satisfied with BP management (98.4% vs. 95.1%), and the frequency of tests of maternal and fetal well being. Half of women in both groups perceived that their BP was too high and that caregivers thought that their BP was too high. More women in the 'less tight' (vs. the 'tight') control group took less medication than expected (71.7% vs. 38.2%). More women in the 'tight' (vs. the 'less tight') group took more medication than they expected (60.0% vs. 22.2%). At least 60% of all women used home BP monitoring. CONCLUSION: In the CHIPS Pilot Trial, while women stated that they were satisfied with their BP management and care, a surprising 50% in both groups thought that their BP was too high. The majority of women used home BP monitoring, the role of which must be further defined in hypertensive pregnancies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".