The third paradigm in labour pain preparation and management: the childbearing woman's paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE STUDY'S RATIONALE: Women's experiences regarding labour pain preparation and management have been largely neglected. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Explore women's experiences regarding labour pain preparation and management in normal childbirth. METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN AND JUSTIFICATION: The Vancouver School of doing phenomenology was the methodological approach of the study since it provides inside information about the lived experience. RESEARCH METHODS: Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 14 participants; seven primiparous and seven multiparous women. RESULTS: The women described a challenging journey of no return through labour pain, with different landmarks on the journey. They described how they prepared for the pain; the context of the pain experience; how they experienced and managed the pain with different strategies and how they saw the pain at the journey's end. The quality of the midwife's presence and professionalism was of great importance to them. The 'good midwives' they described created a special atmosphere which was warm and secure and was conducive to their managing the pain. The women also described how important it was for them to have a supportive partner, with whom they had a mutual understanding, in order to manage the pain. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper, we are presenting a study within the third paradigm in labour pain preparation and management: the childbearing woman's paradigm - the first and second being the midwifery and the medical paradigm, respectively. Midwives can play a major role in working with women in their preparation and management of labour pain. In the future, more research has to be done to illuminate this essential part of the childbearing woman's paradigm.
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 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".