Midwives’ perceptions of communication during videotaped counseling for prenatal anomaly tests: How do they relate to clients’ perceptions and independent observations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide insight into Dutch midwives' self-evaluation of prenatal counseling for anomaly screening in real life practice and, the degree of congruence of midwives' self-assessments with clients' perceptions and with observed performance. METHODS: Counseling sessions were videotaped. We used the QUOTE(prenatal) questionnaire to have each midwife (N = 20) and her client (N = 240) rate the prenatal counseling that they had together. We used an adapted version of the RIAS video-coding system to assess actual counseling during videotaped prenatal counseling (N = 240). RESULTS: Midwives perceived the following functions of counseling performed well: 100% of Client-Counselor relation (CCR); 80% of Health Education (HE); and 17% Decision-Making Support (DMS). Congruence on HE of midwives with observers and with clients was ≥ 75%; congruence on DMS was higher between midwives and observers (80%) compared to midwives and clients (62%). CONCLUSION: Midwives perceive that during prenatal counseling the CCR and HE functions of counseling were performed well, whereas DMS was not. Furthermore, this study shows incongruence between midwives and clients about the discussion during DMS, indicating DMS is more difficult to assess than HE. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The best way to measure prenatal counseling practice might be by using assessments of different sources within one study.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".