MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762075728 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.6.e35-59

60: Women's Experiences of the Prenatal Consultation for Preterm Labor: Neonatologists as Highlights, and Opportunities for Improvement

2014· article· en· W2762075728 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Gaucher, Sophie Nadeau, A Barbier, Antoine Payot

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLikert scaleNeonatologyFamily medicineFeelingPrenatal careExploratory researchNursingPediatricsPregnancyPopulationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recommendations about prenatal counseling for pre-term labor, based on expert opinions, emphasize informing parents. Mothers' perspectives are lacking. To evaluate mother's experiences of prenatal consultations for preterm labor. This was a prospective survey of hospitalized women at risk of preterm delivery 26 to 32 weeks GA, who had met the neonatologist for prenatal consultation within the last 72 h.The tool was developed using data from a qualitative exploratory study; construct and content validity were accounted for through several validation phases. A single-center pilot study was conducted in 2008, leading to a multicenter trial in three tertiary care university hospitals (April 2012 to September 2013). Variables were analyzed using Chi2 and Student T-tests. A total of 229 of 334 surveys were returned (67.2%). Sixty-five percent of consultations were performed by one healthcare provider, with neonatologists providing most explanations (77.9%). Participants' overall experiences were positive (89.9%). Consultations lasted 10 min to 20 min (68.1%); length of meeting was associated with women feeling informed about prematurity, prepared for their role as mother, and reassured (P<0.001). Complications of prematurity were explained adequately for 53.9% of women and in too much detail for 39.3%. Sixteen percent of women did not receive data on prematurity's complications; of those who did, most obtained it in general terms (72.0%). After the meeting, women felt very well informed about prematurity (mean 4.4 on a 5-point Likert scale), but they felt less well prepared as the mother of a premature baby (mean 3.65; P<0.001). More highlights and potential improvements are presented in the table. Prenatal consultations with a neonatologist are strongly appreciated. Information about prematurity predominates the physicians' discourses. This study informs clinicians about potential improvements, especially in light of mothers' priorities..

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207