What bereaved parents want health care providers to know when their babies are stillborn: a community-based participatory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bereaved parents experience higher rates of depressive and post-traumatic stress symptoms after the stillbirth of a baby than after live-birth. Yet, these effects remain underreported in the literature and, consequently, insufficiently addressed in health provider education and practice. We conducted a participatory based study to explore the experiences of grieving parents during their interaction with health care providers during and after the stillbirth of a baby. METHODS: This community-based participatory study utilized four focus groups comprised of twenty-seven bereaved parents (44% fathers). Bereaved parents conceptualized the study, participating at all stages of research, analyses, and drafting. Data were reduced into a main theme and subthemes, then broad-based member checked to ensure fidelity and nuances within themes. RESULTS: The major theme that emerged centered on provider acknowledgement of the baby as an irreplaceable individual. Subthemes reflected 1) acknowledgement of parenthood and grief, 2) recognition of the traumatic nature of stillbirth, and 3) acknowledgement of enduring grief coupled with access to support. It was important that providers realized how grief was experienced within health care and social support systems, concretized by their desire for long-term, specialized support. CONCLUSIONS: Both mothers and fathers feel that acknowledgement of their baby as an individual, their parenthood, and their enduring traumatic grief by healthcare providers are key elements required in the process of initiating immediate and ongoing care after the stillbirth of a baby.
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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".