Pain perception and satisfaction of postpartum women: a comparative study after vaginal and caesarean birth in Aracaju public hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In addition to the quality of care, physical structure and access to health services, a humanized care during birth process should reflect on the women’s experience of pain and satisfaction. Objective: To compare the satisfaction and perception of pain experienced by women during vaginal and cesarean delivery processes. Methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study involving women in the immediate postpartum period. The modified “Experience and Satisfaction with Childbirth Questionnaire” (“Questionario de Experiencia e Satisfacao com o Parto” – QESP), the short version of “McGill pain questionnaire” and the “female body representation scheme” were used. Results: 150 postpartum women were interviewed. After cesarean section demonstrated more satisfaction regarding the way the labor (LB) was carried out (p=0.01) and less satisfaction with pain in the postpartum period (PP) (p=0.04). Those submitted to vaginal delivery were more satisfied with their PP (p=0.02) and less satisfied with the intensity of pain during LB (p=0.03) and at birth (B) (p=0.01). The pain described during LB and B were “acute” and “cruel-punitive”. In relation to PP, pain in the lower belly was more often reported after cesarean sections. Pain intensity during LB was significantly higher in vaginal labor (7,30 (±2,82) versus 5,86 (±3,51), (p=0,007). Conclusion: The perform cesarean sections were more satisfied with the way LB was carried out and less satisfied in relation to pain in the PP. Women who underwent vaginal labor were more satisfied with the PP and less satisfied with the intensity of pain during LB and at B.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".