MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159366014 · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2013.08.012

Midwives' views on appropriate antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests: Do they match clients' preferences?

2013· article· en· W2159366014 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Martin, Eileen K. Hutton, Evelien Spelten, Janneke T. Gitsels-van der Wal, Sandra van Dulmen

Bibliographic record

VenueMidwifery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAcademie Verloskunde Amsterdam Groningen
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineNursingPregnancyDescriptive statisticsPsychologyMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: this study aims to provide insight into: (a) midwives' views on appropriate antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests, and (b) whether these views match clients' preferences regarding antenatal counselling. DESIGN: a comparative (midwives versus clients) questionnaire survey. Cognitive interviews (n=8) were used to validate the internal validity of the midwifery questionnaire results. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 1416 Dutch midwives (response 62%) completed a questionnaire measuring their views on appropriate antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests. MEASUREMENTS: we used the 58-item midwives' version of the QUOTE (prenatal), an instrument to assess clients' counselling preferences. Descriptive statistics were used to explore midwives' views on appropriate counselling and how these relate to client preferences as measured previously with the clients' version of the QUOTE (prenatal). FINDINGS: almost all midwives consider the client-midwife relation (100%) and health education (95%) to be (very) important for appropriate antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests. Almost half of the midwives consider decision-making support (47%) to be (very) important. These findings are practically congruent with client preferences. Still, clinically relevant differences were found regarding 13 individual items, e.g. more clients than midwives value 'medical information about congenital anomalies' and 'getting advice whether to take prenatal tests or not'. KEY CONCLUSION: like clients, most midwives value a good client-midwife relation and health education as (very) important for antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests. Less than half of them value decision-making support. These findings are in contrast with the literature in which decision-making support is seen as the most important part of antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: preferably, antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests should be consistent with the three-function model of antenatal counselling i.e. maintaining a client-midwife relation, providing health education as well as decision-making support, and tailored to clients' individual preferences. As not all midwives subscribe to these functions, reflection on their views is important. Furthermore, midwives need to bridge their views on appropriate antenatal counselling and client preferences. To do so, midwives may benefit from the Shared Decision Making approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMidwiferySame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207