Exploring the prenatal experience of women with intellectual and developmental disabilities: In a southeastern Ontario family health team.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify psychosocial challenges facing pregnant women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) using retrospective, routinely collected electronic medical record data. DESIGN: A retrospective qualitative study using narratives and supporting documents found in the electronic medical record of an academic family health team (FHT). SETTING: Academic FHT in southeastern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 10 women with a diagnosis of IDD, rostered to physicians at the academic FHT, who delivered a child between January 2010 and June 2015 (14 pregnancies). Exclusion criteria included women who received prenatal care from a midwife and women for whom no delivery or antenatal records were available. METHODS: Thematic analysis of data collected from a retrospective chart review. MAIN FINDINGS: Many women with IDD had yes marked on their antenatal records for poor social supports, family violence, and parenting concerns. Women with IDD had pregnancies that were characterized by complex social environments, financial instability, discord between their perceptions and their physicians' perceptions, and stressful encounters with Child and Family Services. CONCLUSION: Findings in this study support previous research that pregnant women with IDD are a vulnerable population, at higher risk of adverse health outcomes. There is a need for specific care guidelines for health care providers, as well as additional resources and social supports.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".