Postpartum psychological distress after emergency team response during childbirth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a protocol determining the relationship between emergency team response (ETR) during childbirth and acute stress disorder (ASD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms.Methods: In a prospective, observational, cohort design, women experiencing ETR during childbirth were approached and recruited on postpartum day-1 and followed for six weeks. Demographics, obstetric and birth characteristics, ASD scores and PTSD scores (by Impact of Events Scale, IES and PCL-civilian) were recorded. Recruitment and retention rates were recorded, and scores were compared to women who did not experience ETR.Results: Three hundred sixty-nine were approached and 249 were enrolled (67.5% recruitment rate). One hundred twenty-five completed all procedures (50.2% retention). Twenty experienced ETR (3.5% event rate), 12 enrolled (60.0% recruitment rate) and 8 completed the study (66.7% retention). The ETR group had higher PCL and IES scores (PCL: ETR median 12, non-ETR median 2, p = .08; IES: ETR median 22.5, non-ETR median 20, p = .08). ASD scores were similar between groups.Conclusions: Methodology investigating the link between ETR and postpartum psychological distress is feasible and acceptable. A relationship between ETR and PTSD symptoms appears to exist, with ETR being associated with higher PTSD scores compared to non-ETR childbirths. Methods that incorporate awareness of the unique concerns of vulnerable populations are needed.
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 | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".