Comparison of Perception of Pregnancy Risk of Nulliparous Women of Advanced Maternal Age and Younger Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Over the last 3 decades, the proportion of women who have delayed childbearing into their mid 30s and early 40s has been increasing. Because advanced maternal age (AMA) is associated with several adverse maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes, these pregnancies are considered to be "high risk." Research indicates that pregnancy risk perception is an important factor in pregnant women's health care use and decision making during pregnancy. The objectives of this study were to compare risk perception in pregnant women of AMA (aged 35 years or older) with that of younger women and to explore the relationship between perception of pregnancy risk and selected variables. METHODS: A sample of 159 nulliparous pregnant women (105 aged 20-29 years and 54 aged 35 years or older) was recruited from a variety of settings in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Women were asked to complete questionnaires to assess perception of pregnancy risk, risk knowledge, pregnancy-related anxiety, perceived control, health status, and medical risk. RESULTS: Women of AMA had higher education levels, were more likely to work during pregnancy, and had higher medical risk scores than younger women. Women of AMA perceived higher pregnancy risk for both themselves and their fetuses than did younger women. They rated their risks of cesarean birth, dying during pregnancy, preterm birth, and having a newborn with a birth defect or one needing admission to a neonatal intensive care unit higher than those of younger women. There were no significant differences between the 2 age groups in pregnancy-related anxiety, knowledge of risk, perceived control, and health status. DISCUSSION: Women of AMA have a higher perception of pregnancy risk than younger women, regardless of their medical risk. This evidence suggests that incorporating discussions of pregnancy risk into prenatal care visits may assist pregnant women of AMA to make more informed choices, reduce anxiety, and avoid unnecessary interventions.
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) | 0.001 | 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".