MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132293004 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13233.1

Maternity care during COVID-19: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of women’s and maternity care providers’ views and experiences.

2021· preprint· en· W3132293004 on OpenAlexaff
Valerie Smith, Sarah Jane Flaherty, Karen Matvienko‐Sikar, Hannah Delaney

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersHealth and Social Care Northern IrelandPublic Health AgencyHealth Research Board
KeywordsCINAHLCochrane LibraryMEDLINENursingPsycINFOThematic analysisMedicineChildbirthMaternity careFamily medicineQualitative researchPsychologyPregnancyAlternative medicinePsychological interventionSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Considerable changes in maternity care provision internationally were implemented in response to COVID-19. Such changes, often occurring suddenly with little advance warning, have had the potential to affect women’s and maternity care providers experience of maternity care, both positively and negatively. For this reason, to gain insight and understanding of personal and professional experiences, we will perform a synthesis of the available qualitative evidence on women and maternity care providers’ views and experiences of maternity care during COVID-19. Methods and analysis : A qualitative evidence synthesis will be conducted. Studies will be eligible if they include pregnant or postpartum women (up to six months) and maternity care providers who received or provided care during COVID-19. To retrieve relevant literature the electronic databases of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane COVID study register ( https://covid-19.cochrane.org/ ) will be searched from 01-Jan-2020 to date of search. A combination of search terms based on COVID-19, pregnancy, childbirth and maternity care, and study design, will be used to guide the search. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed by at least two reviewers using the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI)-Centre 12-criteria quality assessment tool. The Thomas and Harden approach to thematic synthesis will be used for data synthesis. This will involve line by line coding of extracted data, establishing descriptive themes, and determining analytical themes. Confidence in the findings of the review will be assessed by two reviewers independently using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual). Conclusion : The proposed synthesis of evidence will help identify maternity care needs during a global pandemic from the perspectives of those receiving and providing care. The evidence will inform and help enhance care provision into the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.167
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1670.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0060.010
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1430.023

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 head0.413
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB Open ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207