Exploring Women's Preferences for the Mode of Delivery in Twin Gestations: Results of the Twin Birth Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Twin Birth Study, an international, multi-center randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the risks of planned cesarean with planned vaginal delivery for twin pregnancies. The aim of this component of the trial was to understand participants' perspectives of study participation and preferences for the mode of delivery. METHODS: A mixed-methods questionnaire was distributed to study participants 3 months after giving birth. The questionnaire contained Likert scales and open-ended questions about the experience of being enrolled in a clinical trial and of childbirth, including the mode of delivery. Quantitative data were analyzed using SAS to generate descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed to identify categories and themes. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of trial participants completed the questionnaire. Across all groups, the majority of women would participate in a study like this one again if given the opportunity. Main benefits of participating were as follows: benefits to one and one's babies, altruism, and receiving quality care. Randomization for the mode of delivery was challenging for women because of the desire to be involved in decision-making. Findings related to childbirth experience and the mode of delivery demonstrated a preference for vaginal birth across all groups. Those who had a vaginal birth were more satisfied with their birth experience. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence to inform practitioners about what women who have twin pregnancies like or dislike about birth and their desire for involvement in decision-making. Vaginal birth was preferred across all study groups and was associated with greater satisfaction with childbirth experience.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".