Antenatal consultations for preterm labour: how are future mothers reassured?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the antenatal consultation for preterm labour worries or reassures women, and to identify factors contributing to these feelings. DESIGN: This is a prospective survey study from April 2012 to September 2013. This mixed-methodology tool was co-constructed with patients and first tested in a single-centre pilot study. SETTING: Three university-affiliated, tertiary care, high-risk obstetrics inpatient units in Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Women hospitalised with threatened preterm labour between 26 and 32 weeks' gestational age completed the survey within 72 hours of an antenatal consultation by neonatology. 341 women were invited to participate and 226 mothers completed the survey (72% response rate), at a median gestational age of 30 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participant worry, reassurance and change in perception after the antenatal consultation were the main outcome measures. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with these outcomes. RESULTS: 23% of participants were worried by the consultation, and 87% were reassured by it. Lower gestational age and higher maternal education were associated with feeling worried (adjusted OR=0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99; and adjusted OR=2.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.44, respectively). Longer consultations were associated with reassurance (adjusted OR=8.21, 95% CI 2.67 to 25.26). Women were reassured by (1) feeling well informed about prematurity with optimistic outlooks, and (2) a trusting and reassuring expert neonatology team. High-quality interactions with neonatologists were associated with reassurance, while poorer communications were associated with feelings of worry. CONCLUSIONS: To be reassuring, neonatologists should strive to establish a trusting relationship with mothers, in which realistic and clear, but optimistic, information is offered.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".