Workplace experience of parents coping with perinatal loss: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perinatal loss affects many parents in the workforce. Yet, current knowledge about their workplace experience while facing this difficult event is sparse. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to review and synthesize the extent of scientific literature on the specific experiences of workers coping with perinatal loss and the resulting bereavement. METHODS: A scoping review was carried out using eight different databases. A total of 15 references, all using a qualitative methodology, were identified. RESULTS: Most of the references focused on the experience of mothers and on late perinatal loss (from the 20th week of pregnancy). All references highlighted the taboo and the non-recognition of perinatal grief and bereavement in both organizational practices and interpersonal relationships with colleagues and immediate supervisors. They also emphasized the difficulties associated with returning to work after the loss and the significant changes in the meaning attributed to work. CONCLUSIONS: While the studies included in this review clearly indicate that perinatal loss can affect working life, larger, quantitative studies are needed to quantify this phenomenon and its impact on employees and their organizations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".