Measuring Nursing Support During Childbirth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the amount of support being provided by nurses to women during childbirth and factors that influence the provision of support. STUDY DESIGN: Exploratory, descriptive. METHODS: Work sampling method was used to determine the percentage of time nurses spend in supportive care activities. Twelve nurses were observed over six nonconsecutive day shifts on a birthing unit of a Canadian teaching hospital in Quebec. A total of 404 observations were made. Nurses were also interviewed to determine their perceptions of what constitutes supportive nursing care and the factors that facilitate or inhibit the provision of this care. RESULTS: Nurses spent only 12.4% of their total time providing supportive care to laboring women. Interviews with nurses suggested that perceptions of the components of supportive care were comparable to this study's operational definition of support, namely: physical, emotional, and instructional/informational support and advocacy. Barriers to providing support identified by nurses included lack of time and insufficient staff. However, further content analysis of the interview data revealed that healthcare providers had a pervasive sense of control over laboring women and their partners. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although nursing support has been identified as an important aspect of nursing care in childbirth, this study demonstrated an incongruity between what nurses perceived as being supportive care and the amount of support that was actually provided. Barriers to the provision of supportive care in the practice setting as well as suggestions for its enhancement are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".