“I Didn’t Need People’s Negative Thoughts”: Women With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Reporting Attitudes Toward Their Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Since the illegalization of involuntary sterilization of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, there has been an increase in childbearing in this population. However, women with intellectual and developmental disabilities continue to experience prejudicial attitudes toward their pregnancies. Objective To analyze the experiences of women with intellectual and developmental disabilities regarding their perceptions of support persons’ attitudes toward their pregnancies. Methods Three case studies derived from grounded theory research exploring perinatal social support received by women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Using inductive content analysis, we further analyzed the perceptions of women with intellectual and developmental disabilities regarding support persons’ attitudes toward their pregnancies. Findings: The nature of interactions with support persons and women’s characteristics, such as help-seeking behaviors, disability, mental illness, and age, influenced support persons’ attitudes toward childbearing. Women preferred support from caregivers perceived as nonjudgmental and tended to restrict contact with persons perceived as prejudicial. However, some attitudes improved following positive interactions with the women. The relationship between support persons’ attitudes and the women’s help-seeking behaviors is thus complex. Conclusions Education of families and medical and social services practitioners and opportunities for positive contact should be further explored. Caseworkers of women with intellectual and developmental disabilities may have invaluable roles in facilitating positive interactions between women with intellectual and developmental disabilities and caregivers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".