MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099347227 · doi:10.11575/prism/37474

Water Birth: The Experiences and Perceptions of Childbirth Health Care Professionals in Alberta Hospitals

2020· dissertation· en· W3099347227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ashleigh Mercredi

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildbirthNursingPerceptionHealth professionalsHealth careMedicinePsychologyPregnancyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The differences between the medical and midwifery models of childbirth challenge whether the medical model of childbirth represents the best standard of care for women. The introduction and progression of increased access of midwifery services in Alberta has led to water birth becoming more accessible. Water birth, is currently taking place in hospitals in Alberta with claims from midwifery clinics that over 70% of their mothers have given birth in water (Birth Partnership Midwives, n. d.). Although several studies have been conducted regarding patient perspectives surrounding this practice, very little research has been carried out to investigate the perceptions and experiences of childbirth health care professionals (HCPs) who either actively participate in water birth or are exposed to water birth in their work site. A quantitative, nonexperimental, descriptive research study design in the form of a cross-sectional online survey was used to gain a better understanding of the level of support that exists for this practice within the province and explore the overall perceptions and experiences of childbirth HCPs in terms of perceived benefits, risks and barriers toward water birth. Respondents comprised 214 registered nurses, 38 registered midwives, 41 physicians, and 11 obstetricians (N=304). Results showed that childbirth HCPs had a positive level of support for water birth as a practice in Alberta. A significant difference in support levels between the different HCP groups was noted, except for the physician-obstetrician pair. Childbirth HCPs generally perceived high benefits, but also high barriers, high maternal risk, and high other risk associated with water birth. Attitudes toward neonatal risk were more ambiguous. More research is needed to better understand what underlying factors impact the perception of water birth benefits, risks, and barriers to skew either more negatively or more positively. The future of water birth depends not only on more research, but on the beliefs and experiences of the people involved in the birthing process, which includes not only all varieties of childbirth HCPs and women experiencing childbirth, but also other roles within the health care system that impact the delivery of patient care (i.e., administrators, patients, and policy makers).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207