Safety and Pregnancy Massage: a qualitative thematic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, safety and improving safety in the treatment of pregnant women has involved identifying risks that lead to errors or adverse events, and implementing strategies to mitigate potential harm. There is research that suggests that other factors such as a lack of service, lack of care or a lack of quality also contribute to participants feeling unsafe. Currently there is no evidence-based research on the psychological aspects of the safety of massage during pregnancy. PURPOSE: The present study aim was to investigate women's perceptions and experiences of the safety of massage during pregnancy. This included exploring what attributes of the clinician or practice and events that occur during the massage helped pregnant women feel safe. SETTING: Phone interview with participants from Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. PARTICIPANTS: 20 women who received massage whilst pregnant. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative design using thematic analysis. RESULTS: There were five main themes related to safety and massage: 1) Autonomy- able to voice my needs and be heard; 2) Pregnancy massage is more than just a massage; 3) When my therapist is experienced and qualified, I feel safer; 4) The continuity of the massage industry's message about the safety of massage; and 5) Decision-making around massage safety. CONCLUSIONS: Safety is made up of not only the treatment that massage therapists provide, but also the environment they provide it in and how they administer both the treatment and the consultation. The lack of cohesion in messaging about the safety of massage during pregnancy makes women doubt the safety of massage.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".