Comparison of Adolescent, Young Adult, and Adult Women’s Maternity Experiences and Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pregnant adolescents face unique challenges. Understanding the experiences, knowledge, and behaviors of adolescents during the pregnancy and postpartum periods may contribute to improvement of their maternity care. The purpose of this study was to compare the maternity experiences, knowledge, and behaviors of adolescent, young adult, and adult women by using a nationally representative sample. METHODS: This study used data from the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey (N = 6421). The weighted proportions of each variable were calculated by using survey sample weights. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios. Bootstrapping techniques were used to calculate variance estimates for prevalence and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Adolescents and young adults were more likely to experience physical abuse in the previous 2 years, initiate prenatal care late, not take folic acid before or during pregnancy, have poor prenatal health behaviors, have a lower cesarean delivery rate, have lower breastfeeding initiation and duration rates, experience more stressful life events, experience postpartum depression symptoms, and rate their infant's health as suboptimal than adult women. Adolescents were more likely to rate their own health as suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents have unique needs during pregnancy and postpartum. Health care professionals should seek to provide care in a manner that acknowledges these needs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".