Development of a prenatal program for adults with personal histories of childhood abuse or neglect: a Delphi consensus consultation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pregnancy and the birth of a child present particular challenges for adults with personal histories of childhood abuse or neglect. However, few prenatal interventions address the specific needs of this population. This research aims to determine a list of actions that should be achieved during group interventions designed for expectant parents who experienced childhood trauma. METHODS: Fifteen stakeholders representing nine different Quebec health care and community organizations that work with families and/or trauma survivors participated in a Delphi process in two rounds. In round 1, three project leaders identified, from clinical and empirical literature, a set of 36 actions relevant for expectant parents who experienced childhood trauma. Using an anonymized online survey, stakeholders coded how important they considered each action and whether they were already conducting similar interventions in their clinical setting. Stakeholders subsequently participated in a one-day in-person meeting during which they discussed the pertinence of each action, proposed new ones and refined them. This was followed by a second anonymized online survey (round 2). A consensus was reached among the stakeholders regarding a final list of 22 actions. RESULTS: Two central clusters of actions emerged from the consultation process: actions aiming to support mentalization about self and parenthood, and actions aiming to support mentalization of trauma. CONCLUSION: The Delphi process helped to identify what should be the core of a prenatal intervention targeting adults who experienced childhood trauma, from the viewpoint of professionals who will ultimately deliver such a program.
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 | 0.045 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".