Giving Birth in Two Maternity Hospitals in Lithuania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In many hospitals in former Soviet countries, traditional Soviet perinatal policies remain in place, although in others reforms have been introduced. This study explores women's experiences during labor and birth in two Lithuanian maternity hospitals. The hospitals differed in that one (S) followed traditional Soviet era maternity practices whereas the other (P) had been exposed to World Health Organization-Euro practices and policies with respect to more up-to-date evidence-based and family-centered care. METHODS: Consecutive women giving birth in the two maternity hospitals were asked to participate in a survey. Completed responses were obtained from 416 women in one hospital (P) and 304 in the other hospital (S) representing 92.4 and 67.5 percent response rates, respectively. RESULTS: Rates of interventions in both hospitals were similarly high with, however, P hospital being more likely to be sensitive to women's psychosocial needs, such as being allowed to eat and drink more often during labor, and to have their husband or partner with them for labor and birth. CONCLUSION: It appears that in Lithuania, as in many parts of the world, introducing changes to the clinical care of birth takes time, and psychosocial changes may be easier to introduce than alterations in clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".