The Experience of Pregnancy and Birth with Midwives: Results from the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada maternity care is publicly funded, and although women may choose their care providers, choices may be limited. The purpose of this study was to compare perceptions of maternity outcomes and experiences of those who received care from midwives with those who received care from other providers. METHODS: Based on the 2006 Canadian census, a random sample of women (n = 6,421) who had recently given birth in Canada completed a computer-assisted telephone interview for the Maternity Experiences Survey. The sample was stratified according to province or territory where birth occurred, age, rural or urban residence, and presence of other children in the home. Those who were 15 years of age and older, gave birth to a singleton baby, and were living with their infant were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Women whose primary prenatal providers were midwives had fewer ultrasounds and were more likely to attend prenatal classes and have at least five or more prenatal visits. They were also more likely to rate satisfaction with their maternity experience as "very positive" and be satisfied with information provided on a variety of pregnancy and birth topics if their primary prenatal provider was a midwife. They were almost half as likely to experience induction and 7.33 times more likely to experience a medication-free delivery. They were more likely to initiate and maintain breastfeeding at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence shows that midwifery outcomes and levels of satisfaction meet or exceed Canadian maternity care standards. Facilitation of the continuing integration of midwives as autonomous practitioners throughout Canada is recommended. (BIRTH 38:3 September 2011).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".