Childbirth Fear: Relation to Birth and Care Provider Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess how preferences for place of birth and mode of birth relate to different dimensions of childbirth fear and whether there is an association between Canadian women's prenatal fear of childbirth and the type and quality of prenatal care they received. METHODS: A link to an online survey was posted on Canadian pregnancy and birth websites; 409 women completed the survey that included sociodemographic questions, questions about the current pregnancy and previous pregnancy experiences (if applicable), and the Childbirth Fear Questionnaire, a validated 40-item scale that measures 9 dimensions of childbirth fear. RESULTS: Women under physician care and those with a preference for cesarean birth were generally more fearful of pain associated with vaginal birth, fear of loss of sexual pleasure and attractiveness, and fear of harm to themselves or their infant. Conversely, women under the care of midwives and women who preferred to give birth vaginally were more fearful of interventions. Women who preferred a cesarean birth were significantly more likely to report that fear of childbirth interfered with daily functioning, compared to women who preferred a vaginal birth. Satisfaction with care was associated with lower scores on the Childbirth Fear Questionnaire full and subscales, especially among midwifery clients. DISCUSSION: At present there are no guidelines in Canada or the United States for the treatment and/or referral of pregnant women who suffer from childbirth fear. Until such guidelines are developed, findings from the current study can help maternity care providers identify and address specific fears among women in their care and understand how different fear domains relate to care provider choice, satisfaction with care, and women's preferences for place and mode of birth.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".