Midwives’ Attitudes Toward and Experience With a Tablet Intervention to Promote Safety Behaviors for Pregnant Women Reporting Intimate Partner Violence: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Violence against women is considered a global health problem, and intimate partner violence (IPV) around the time of childbirth can have severe consequences for mother and child. Prenatal care is considered a window of opportunity to address IPV and ask women about exposure to violence since women are in regular contact with health care providers. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions might overcome the barriers to talking about IPV face-to-face. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore midwives' attitudes toward a tablet intervention consisting of information about IPV and safety behaviors as well as their experiences with recruiting pregnant women of different ethnic backgrounds in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Individual interviews were conducted with 9 midwives who recruited participants for an RCT to test a video to promote safety behaviors delivered on a tablet during prenatal care. Analysis was guided by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Midwives perceived the tablet intervention as an appropriate supplement during prenatal care to provide information about IPV and promote safety behaviors. They participated in the RCT primarily to obtain more knowledge regarding how to communicate about IPV. The intervention was perceived as an anonymous door-opener to talk about IPV and a good solution to ensure that every woman gets the same information. However, the content of the intervention had to be trustworthy and align with the information the midwives provide to women. Given the sensitivity of IPV, midwives outlined the importance of following the intervention with face-to-face communication. Midwives reported technical problems and a high demand on their time as the main challenges to recruiting women. They experienced challenges recruiting women of different ethnic backgrounds due to linguistic barriers and the women's skepticism about scientific research. CONCLUSIONS: The tablet intervention might help midwives communicate about IPV. Although the video was considered as an anonymous door-opener to talk about IPV, midwives outlined the importance of following the intervention with face-to-face communication. The scarcity of midwives' time during consultations has to be considered when implementing the intervention. Further research is needed to overcome barriers that limit inclusion of women from different ethnic backgrounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03397277; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03397277.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".