Evidence based patient information leaflets in maternity care had limited visibility and did not promote informed choice of childbearing women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stapleton H, Kirkham M, Thomas G. Qualitative study of evidence based leaflets in maternity care. BMJ2002 ; 324 : 639 –43 [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: From the perspectives of childbearing women and health professionals who provide maternity care, do 10 pairs of research based leaflets on informed choice in maternity services ( Informed Choice leaflets) influence choice and decision making? Grounded theory study done in conjunction with a randomised controlled trial. Women’s homes and antenatal and ultrasound clinics in 13 maternity units in England and Wales, UK. Childbearing women using maternity services and health professionals who provide maternity care. 10 pairs of research based Informed Choice leaflets were provided for service users and staff in the control sites. Non-participant observation of 886 antenatal consultations (of 886 childbearing women, 653 midwives, 167 obstetricians, and 66 obstetric ultrasonographers) and 383 indepth interviews (with 163 childbearing women, 177 midwives, 28 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft.stitle%253DBMJ%26rft.aulast%253DStapleton%26rft.auinit1%253DH.%26rft.volume%253D324%26rft.issue%253D7338%26rft.spage%253D639%26rft.epage%253D639%26rft.atitle%253DQualitative%2Bstudy%2Bof%2Bevidence%2Bbased%2Bleaflets%2Bin%2Bmaternity%2Bcare%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.324.7338.639%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11895821%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=324/7338/639&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F1%2F27.atom
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 | 0.130 | 0.398 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".