Evaluation of an Information Pamphlet for Women Considering Epidural Analgesia in Labour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to assess change in knowledge and preference for epidural use associated with use of an information pamphlet and to explore women's decision-making and information needs regarding pain relief in labour. METHODS: Six focus groups with women who were pregnant or had given birth during the past 12 months were conducted in three northern communities in British Columbia. Following completion of a 10-item knowledge pretest, women were randomly assigned to read either a short version or a detailed version of the pamphlet and then complete a post-test. After reading the alternate pamphlet they participated in a moderated discussion. Pretest and post-test knowledge scores were compared, and a thematic analysis of focus group data was conducted. RESULTS: Knowledge scores increased (2.12 points out of a possible total of 10; standard deviation 2.38; 95% CI 1.38 to 2.87). There was no difference in knowledge change or epidural preferences according to which version participants read first. Women preferred the detailed version and indicated that its information was more balanced. Four themes related to decision-making and information needs arose from the focus groups: making an informed choice, being open-minded, wanting comprehensive information, and experiencing pressure to have/not have an epidural. CONCLUSION: An illustrated information pamphlet can significantly increase women's knowledge of benefits and risks of epidural analgesia, but it is not associated with change of preference. Women prefer to receive comprehensive information prenatally to support informed choices in labour.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".