Prenatal education for mothers with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prenatal nurse educators are well prepared to meet the learning needs of many expectant mothers. But how prepared are they to meet the learning needs of mothers with disabilities? To answer this question, eight mothers with various chronic illnesses located in north-eastern Ontario, Canada were asked to describe their maternity experiences. Given the small convenience sample and exploratory nature of the study, a qualitative content analysis was done. The mothers' reports described interaction with a variety of health professionals. This analysis focuses on findings specific to nurses who provide prenatal education. In general, mothers reported they had received insufficient, inappropriate information, especially about their pregnancy and chronic illnesses. The mothers thought that nurses doubted the ability of women with disabilities to be decision-makers or responsible and 'proper' mothers. Suggestions by disabled mothers for quality care in prenatal education are described. A more emancipatory approach to preparing nurses for practice as prenatal educators is recommended. Such an approach can reduce the barriers associated with power differences between women with disabilities as 'learners' and their nurse 'teachers'.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".