A narrative inquiry into women’s perception and experience of labour pain: A study in the western region of ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a general notion among Ghanaian women that the labour is a painful process that must be endured. Regardless of this notion, labour pain experience overwhelms most women. The aim of this study was to inquire into women’s perceptions and experience of labour pain and how women cope with pain. Using the narrative inquiry methodology, five low risk pregnant Ghanaian women; two nulliparous and three multiparas were purposefully selected. Tape-recorded conversations, writing of field notes and journals were used as the main source of data collection before delivery and within one week after delivery. The women’s perception of pain before and after delivery was used to construct narrative accounts from which the findings of the study were generated. To ensure credibility of each narrative account, the interim narrative accounts constructed by the researcher were sent to the women to read and respond to. The findings revealed that before the labour experience, women perceived labour as a painful experience expected to be endured. Antenatal education on labour pain management was inadequate. Additionally use of pain relief methods was lacking although women expressed need for pain relief. Furthermore the findings revealed inadequate physical and emotional support for women in labour to help cope with labour pain. In conclusion the researcher recommends that midwives in consultation with clients adopt a more active method of assessing labour pain. Also antenatal education on pain relief options must be provided. A more conscious effort to provide support for women in labour should be promoted.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".