Somali Women's Experiences with Obstetrician Care Providers During Childbirth in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In the context of international migration, an increasing number of women from countries that traditionally practice FGC have immigrated to Canada (Perron et al., 2013). Given these demographic shifts, it is necessary to provide appropriate reproductive care to newcomer women who have undergone FGC, and to do this it is important to understand women’s perceived childbirth experiences Methods: The purpose of this study was to explore how Somali women who have undergone FGC perceive their experiences with childbirth and their interaction with obstetrician care providers in British Columbia. The study used qualitative method of focus group interviews. Results: Thematic analysis was conducted and 5 main themes were identified, including: preference for a natural birth; health care provider interaction; clinical care for FGC including vaginal examinations, de-infibulation, re-infibulation; desire for greater decision making capacity and differences in biomedical and Somali cultural practices. Discussion: The results show that there still remain largely unmet needs regarding appropriate clinical care for FGC and provider-patient interaction. In particular, there is tension between Somali women’s preference for a natural birth and perceived extra interventions by obstetricians. Furthermore, the Somali women reported dissatisfaction with aspects of the clinical management of FGC during delivery, particularly the timing of de-infibulation. Improving patient-provider communication and addressing issues of power-asymmetry could mitigate tensions, improve trust and reduce dissatisfaction experienced by Somali women during the 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".