Italian fathers' experiences of labour pain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Most women in Italy ask the father of their baby to be with them during labour. While the benefits on labour outcomes related to the presence of a support person, specifically the infant's father, have largely been demonstrated, few studies have focused on the meaning of this experience for fathers who chose to be with their partners during labour. Despite growing literature on this topic, no study has been conducted in Italy. Methods: The objective of the study is to explain the meaning of the labour pain experience from the father's point of view. The chosen research method was phenomenology. The study involved six fathers. Data collection was conducted through in-depth interviews, until data saturation was reached. Data analysis was conducted using Colaizzi's method. Strategies for increasing trustworthiness were used, such as member checking, peer examination, and code and recode procedures. Results: Five core themes emerged to describe fathers' experiences, including: 1) ‘labour pain is something you have to go through’; 2) a silent presence that gives courage; 3) ‘I hope I can stay until the end of the birth’; 4) ‘I didn't know that would happen’; and 5) fathers' need to ‘recharge their batteries'. Conclusion: Fathers, or partners, are an important resource for women during their labour. However, it is important to prepare men for this role and to provide anticipatory guidance on what to expect during labour. It is important to recognise that the partner may need support or guidance from the midwife during labour. Dissemination of these findings to fathers will also help them to know that their feelings and experiences are common and shared by others.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it