Preferred ways of giving birth in non-pregnant and pregnant nulliparous women: the role of control beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To explore the association between delivery-specific, health-related control beliefs and preferred ways of delivery in nulliparous Hungarian women. Moreover, since data about the delivery-specific control beliefs and delivery-related preferences of non-pregnant nulliparous women are lacking, the present study also seeks to provide descriptive information in this regard.Methods A total of 984 Hungarian nulliparous women (26.45 ± 5.42 years; 660/77.2% non-pregnant and 224/22.8% pregnant) were included in the present study. The online assessment included measures of delivery-specific (internal-, healthcare professional-, and chance-related) health control beliefs, fears of childbirth, self-esteem, as well as preferences regarding delivery setting (i.e. spontaneous vaginal birth in hospital, planned cesarean birth and home birth).Results Healthcare professional-related control beliefs were associated with a stronger preference for spontaneous vaginal birth in hospital (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.56–2.23) and planned cesarean birth (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.60–2.40), alongside a weaker preference for home birth (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.25–0.39). In contrast, internal delivery-specific control beliefs predicted a weaker preference for planned cesarean (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.55–0.78) and a stronger preference for home birth (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.33–2.00). A general preference index for medicalized ways of delivery was negatively associated with internal – and positively with healthcare professional – and chance-related control beliefs (βs = −.173, .074 and .445, respectively).Conclusions Delivery-related control beliefs are important psychological characteristics in the prediction of preferences for ways of delivery. Understanding delivery-specific control beliefs may be an important component of supporting women to give birth in a mentally and physically healthy way.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".