A qualitative interview study into experiences of management of labor pain among women in midwife-led care in the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many pregnant women are concerned about the pain they will experience in labor and how to deal with this. This study's objective was to explore women's postpartum perception and view of how they dealt with labor pain. METHODS: Semistructured postpartum interviews were analyzed using the constant comparison method. Using purposive sampling, we selected 17 women from five midwifery practices across the Netherlands, from August 2009 to September 2010. RESULTS: Women reported that control over decision making during labor (about dealing with pain) helped them to deal with labor pain, as did continuous midwife support at home and in hospital, and effective childbirth preparation. Some of these women implicitly or explicitly indicated that midwives should know which method of pain management they need during labor and arrange this in good time. DISCUSSION: It may be difficult for midwives to discriminate between women who need continuous support through labor without pain medication and those who genuinely desire pain medication at a certain point in labor, and who will be dissatisfied postpartum if this need is unrecognized and unfulfilled.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".