Self‐administered medications in the postpartum wards: A study on satisfaction and perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe women's satisfaction and perceptions on the postpartum self-administered medication (SAM) program at our institution and on pain relief. Also, we aimed at describing maternal and breastfed infants' adverse events with the use of the postpartum SAM program. METHOD: This prospective 1-group mixed methods survey conducted in a mother-and-child tertiary center included women enrolled in the postpartum SAM program who had a live newborn, understood French or English, and were at least 18 years old. Newborns included cohabited with their mother during their hospitalization and had received breast milk at least once. Data were collected through direct interviews using a questionnaire and through medical charts. RESULTS: We included 314 mothers and 263 breastfed newborns in the study. Ninety-seven percent of all users appreciated the SAM. The self-reported median overall improvement of pain was 80% (interquartile range, 70%-90%). However, 18% of users who delivered vaginally and 32% who delivered through caesarean would have preferred traditional drug dispensing by the nurse (P = .009). Drugs used in the SAM program were generally well tolerated. There were no worrisome adverse drug events reported in newborns' medical charts. CONCLUSION: Results show a 97% rate of satisfaction of the SAM program and a high self-reported pain improvement in a cohort of 314 women using our SAM program. The results suggest that the SAM program should remain a standard practice in our institution. Some recommendations will be drawn to better tailor the SAM program to the needs expressed by the users.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".