MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Women's views on the practice of prenatal perineal massage

2001· article· en· W2040492759 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michel Labrecque, Erica Eason, Sylvie Marcoux

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité Laval
FundersMedical Research CouncilHealth CanadaMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsMassageMedicineObservational studyPhysical therapyPregnancyLikert scaleObstetricsAlternative medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine how women who practised perineal massage during pregnancy assessed the technique. DESIGN: Observational study within one arm of a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five secondary and tertiary care hospitals in the Province of Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Among 763 women randomised to the massage arm of a clinical trial of perineal massage during pregnancy, 684 (90%) who completed a questionnaire after delivery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A 20-item questionnaire completed a few days after birth. The first 18 questions elicited opinions using a 6-point Likert scale. Based on a factor analysis, 17 of these questions were classified into four categories: acceptability of perineal massage (8 items); preparation for birth (4 items); relationship with the partner (2 items); and effect of massage on delivery (3 items). Scores of each scale varied between 1 (highly negative assessment) to 6 (highly positive assessment). The last two questions asked whether women would perform the massage in their next pregnancy and whether they would recommend perineal massage to another pregnant woman. In addition, 262 also provided comments about their experience in the daily diary provided to record compliance during the trial. RESULTS: On average, perineal massage was felt to be quite acceptable [mean (standard deviation) 4.09 (0.93)]. Pain and technical problems reported during the first week or two of massage tended to disappear after a few weeks. Women's assessment of the effect of massage on preparation for birth [4.34 (1.08)] and on delivery [4.18 (1.37)] was positive. Women's views about the effect on their relationship with their partner were either positive or negative [3.54 (1.74)] and were proportional to the partner's participation with the massage. Most women said they would massage again if they were to have another pregnancy (79%; 95% CI, 76%-82%) and would recommend it to another pregnant woman (87%; 95% CI 84%-90%). CONCLUSION: Overall, women's assessment of prenatal perineal massage is positive.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207