Maternal and paternal satisfaction in the delivery room: a cross-sectional comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Maternal satisfaction during the birthing process has been well documented, whereas little is known about the fathers' birth experiences. Our objective was to evaluate and compare the birth satisfaction of mothers and fathers. DESIGN: Comparative cross-sectional study. SETTING: Number of participating centres: one level III maternity centre (2813 births in 2011) in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 200 mothers and 200 accompanying fathers/mother's partner recruited 12-24 h after the birth over a 6-week period. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The Birth Satisfaction Scale (BSS) was used for the mother, and it was adapted to the father's perspective. Paired-samples t tests were used for comparing mothers and fathers for the BSS global and thematic scores. Multiple linear regressions (forward stepwise method) were made to identify predicting factors of mothers' and fathers' satisfaction. RESULTS: Global satisfaction scores for mothers (115.5/150) and fathers (114.4/150) were relatively high and similar (p=0.116). The analysis of subthemes showed that more distress during childbirth was reported by mothers (p<0.001), while less support (p<0.001) and care satisfaction (p<0.001) were reported by fathers. The use of epidural anaesthesia during vaginal birth was the sole concordant lower satisfaction predictor. For mothers, other satisfaction predictors were labour length, tearing and type of anaesthesia used in caesarean section. For fathers, lower satisfaction predictors were instrumental delivery, primary caesarean delivery and infant's distress factors after caesarean section. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights differences in mothers' and fathers' birth satisfaction and in their predictors. It is thus important to take into account the birth experience of each parent and to support parents accordingly by adapting care provision surrounding childbirth. More research on this topic from the prenatal to the postnatal period is suggested, as it might have an impact on parents' satisfaction and on early parenthood experience.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".