Health Professionals' Practices and Attitudes About Miscarriage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of the study were to explore relationships between attitudes, beliefs, and practices of healthcare professionals caring for women and families experiencing miscarriage and to identify gaps and barriers in follow-up services and supports for these women and families. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A survey about beliefs, attitudes, and practices regarding women and families experiencing miscarriage and barriers to care was conducted electronically and through distribution in three emergency departments (EDs). There were 174 participants; physicians (n = 50), RNs (n = 63), midwives (n = 38), nurse practitioners (n = 9), and others (n = 4). RESULTS: Participants believed that miscarriage can have high impact on women and families. They provided information to patients about miscarriage and its present and future implications. The most important predictor for mobilization of support by healthcare professionals was confidence. Nurses in EDs reported the least amount of confidence and knowledge to provide women and families with support. Availability and awareness of specific services by professionals and health system issues were identified as barriers to care. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Education of healthcare professionals, particularly of RNs in EDs, is important to address misconceptions about miscarriage, increase confidence in providing support, and promote effective care. Women and families experiencing miscarriage need privacy and timeliness in care. Interventions such as funded midwifery loss care or a routine telephone follow-up call could improve access to care and help healthcare professionals ensure that families obtain the type and amount of support that they need.
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 | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".