The “Double Pain” of Childbirth: Immigrant Women's Preference for Female Providers Intrapartum [33Q]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Having a male obstetrical provider can be particularly problematic for some immigrant women whose religio-cultural ideals instill a strong preference for female providers. The objective of this study was to gain understanding of the importance and effect of provider gender for immigrant women accessing obstetrical care. METHODS: A focused ethnography was conducted using purposive and convenience sampling of 38 immigrant women from one hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Data collection comprised of semi-structured interviews antenatally (38) and postpartum (21), and observation intrapartum (17). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data was managed by a qualitative data analysis software, and analyzed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Women came from various educational and ethnic backgrounds, but the majority were Muslim (30) and married (36), with a mean age of 27.7 years. All women stated that although they preferred a female, they would accept care from a male provider, as provider competency and desire for a safe birth were most important. A culture of modesty, often interwoven with Islam, informed this preference. Nonetheless, women experienced varying degrees of psychological stress from having received care from a male provider intrapartum, which for a small minority led to considerable, potentially serious consequences. CONCLUSION: As a whole, women are accepting of care from a male provider. However, for a small minority of women, it can be quite detrimental. There is a need to identify those women for whom this is a substantial barrier, so that optimal support can be determined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".