‘ISeeYou’: A woman-centred care education and research project in Dutch bachelor midwifery education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine how student midwives in higher education learn to become competent and confident woman-centred practitioners. Design: Participant observation study using a ‘buddy’ approach. Setting: Bachelor of Midwifery students in one higher education institution in the Netherlands Methods: First-year student midwives followed one woman throughout the continuum of childbirth. The students attended a minimum of five of the woman’s antenatal care encounters and a minimum of one postnatal care encounter. In addition, students explored the woman’s professional care network. Student midwives used participant observation, structured interview techniques and reflective practice to focus on (1) the woman and to gain insight into her wishes and experiences of care throughout the continuum of pregnancy, birth and postpartum period; (2) the impact of the caregiver on the woman; and (3) the woman’s experience of the partnership. Lectures, peer-debriefing, competency assessments, research activities and a logbook supported students’ learning. Results: Learning was achieved through the student’s relational continuity and active engagement with the individual woman. Students gained insight into the experiences of individual pregnant and postpartum women, the individual practice of healthcare practitioners and the interaction between the woman and the healthcare practitioner. Students’ development of critical thinking and reflective practice was enhanced to begin to form a vision of woman-centred care. Conclusion: The project was successful in equipping Bachelor of Midwifery students with competencies to support them in their learning of providing woman-centred care and offered them unique and in-depth experiences supporting and augmenting their personal, professional and academic development.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".