What information do parents want from the antenatal consultation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore whether the information content, process and social interaction of the antenatal consultation satisfies the informational needs of women admitted to hospital in preterm and threatened preterm labour. METHODS: Fifty women with pregnancies of gestational ages of between 25 and 32 weeks were admitted to a tertiary care perinatal referral centre and provided with an antenatal consultation about the medical risks and treatments relative to their potentially premature infant. Within 48 h following the consultation, patients were asked to respond to a questionnaire to assess their recall of the information provided, their information expectations and their anxiety level. RESULTS: The majority of respondents (92%) thought that the antenatal consultation increased their knowledge and understanding of what might happen if their infant was born preterm. Although the mean state anxiety score was high, 78% agreed that the consultation relieved some of their worry and anxiety about their baby. In rank order, respondents wanted information about chances of survival, likely medical problems and the risk for disability, followed by medical treatments and breastfeeding. They consistently recalled receiving information about chances of survival, likely medical problems and medical treatments. CONCLUSION: Following the antenatal consultation, respondents were generally satisfied with the information provided but remained highly anxious. Recall of the discussion about disability was inconsistent. They reported needing an opportunity to express their feelings, and to talk about their baby and their anticipated interaction with their baby. Recognizing these aspects can help to improve physician-patient communication.
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 | 0.002 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".