Satisfaction With Planned Place of Birth Among Midwifery Clients in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare satisfaction with the birth experience among a population of women planning birth at home versus in hospital. In British Columbia, Canada, all midwives offer women meeting eligibility requirements for homebirth the choice to give birth in hospital or at home. Therefore, satisfaction can be attributed to planned place of birth, as the caregivers were the same in both settings. The mean overall score on the Labour Agentry Scale among women who had planned a homebirth (n = 550), 188.49 +/- 16.85, was significantly higher than those who planned birth in hospital (n = 108), 176.60 +/- 23.79; P < .001. Overall satisfaction with the birth experience was higher among women planning birth at home, 4.87 +/- 0.42 versus 4.80 +/- 0.49 on a scale of 1 to 5, although this difference was not statistically significant; P = .06. Among women whose actual place of birth was congruent with where they had planned, overall satisfaction was higher in the homebirth group, 4.95 +/- 0.20 versus 4.75 +/- 0.53; P < .001. Although satisfaction with the birth experience was high in both the home and hospital settings, women planning birth at home were somewhat more satisfied with their experience, particularly if they were able to complete the birth at home.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".