MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123188957 · doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2005.10.012

Satisfaction With Planned Place of Birth Among Midwifery Clients in British Columbia

2006· article· en· W2123188957 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia A. Janssen, Elaine Carty, Birgit Reime

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Midwifery & Women s Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHome birthPlace of birthMedicinePopulationPatient satisfactionObstetricsNursingScale (ratio)DemographyPsychologyFamily medicinePregnancyChildbirthGeographySociologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Midwifery & Women s HealthSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207