First‐time fathers’ postnatal experiences and support needs: A descriptive qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore first-time fathers' postnatal experiences and support needs in the early postpartum period. BACKGROUND: The postnatal period is a stressful transition period for new fathers. It is imperative to understand their needs and experiences to provide appropriate support for them. The majority of previous studies were based in Western countries and explored fathers' needs during pregnancy and childbirth, with few studies conducted in the postnatal period. In Singapore, a multiracial society with differing paternal cultural values from its Western counterparts, there is considerable need to examine the experiences and needs of first-time fathers. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative design was used. METHODS: Data were collected from November 2015-January 2016. Fifteen first-time fathers were recruited from two postnatal wards of a public hospital, using a purposive sampling method. A semi-structured interview guide was used to conduct face-to-face interviews. A thematic analysis was conducted and ethics approval was sought for this study. RESULTS: Four overarching themes and seventeen subthemes were generated. The four overarching themes were: (1) No sense of reality to sense of responsibility; (2) Unprepared and challenged; (3) Support: needs, sources, experience and attitude; and (4) Future help for fathers. CONCLUSION: Fathers undergo a transition phase where they have unmet support needs during the early postnatal period. Understanding and addressing these needs may facilitate smooth transition to fatherhood. This study's findings can be used to involve fathers and design future supportive educational programs to promote positive parenting experiences and family dynamics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".