Women’s experience of an emergency caesarean birth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To explore women's experience of an emergency caesarean birth to gain a better understanding of their thoughts, and feelings throughout the birth process. BACKGROUND: Women who experience an emergency caesarean birth have an increased risk of psychological distress, however, little is known about the nature of this experience from their perspective. Given the sudden and unexpected nature of this type of birth and the increased risk of psychological distress for these women, it is important for nurses to understand the experience of women who have had an emergency caesarean birth. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted. METHOD: Nine Canadian women who had healthy infants were interviewed a few days after having an emergency caesarean birth. Thematic analysis of interview data was conducted concurrent with the data collection. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified describing the women's experience: (1) It was for the best, (2) I did not have control, (3) Everything was going to be okay, (4) I was so disappointed, (5) I was so scared, (6) I could not believe it and (7) I was excited. CONCLUSION: A key finding was that women felt out of control during this event and used reassuring thoughts to minimise their distress. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses should aim to enhance women's perception of control during the emergency caesarean birth, encourage open expression of their thoughts and feelings about the birth experience, and support the use of positive reframing to cope with this event.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".