Prenatal counseling for congenital anomaly tests: parental preferences and perceptions of midwife performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based instruments to evaluate the preferences and experiences of future parents regarding prenatal counseling for congenital anomaly tests are currently lacking. We developed the quality of care through clients' eyes prenatal questionnaire (QUOTE(prenatal) ), a client-centered instrument, and assessed its components. Furthermore, the QUOTE(prenatal) was used to provide insight into (1) clients' previsit preferences and (2) clients' postvisit experience, that is, perceived care provider performance regarding the counseling they received. METHOD: In the questionnaire survey, a principal component analysis was used to gain insight into the underlying components of the questionnaire. Regression analysis was performed to examine differences between groups. RESULTS: In 17 Dutch midwifery practices, 941 pregnant women and their partners (response rate 79%) completed the 59-item QUOTE(prenatal) previsit and postvisit, measuring preferences and perceived performances, respectively. A principal component analysis revealed three counseling components: client-midwife relation, health education and decision-making support. Reponses showed that, previsit, most clients consider the client-midwife relationship and health education to be (very) important. One third of the clients consider decision-making support to be (very) important. Nulliparae had higher preferences for health education and decision-making support than multiparae. CONCLUSION: Clients perceive that their midwives perform well in building the client-midwife relationship and in giving health education. Improvement is needed in decision-making support.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".