Maternal perceptions of cesarean birth care: A qualitative study to inform ERAS guideline development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ) program aims to improve outcomes through the development of international guidelines (IGs). As an ERAS IG for CB was being developed, this qualitative study was conducted to explore and consolidate women's experiences with CB. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used to assess the patient experience with current evidence-based CB protocols across operative phases. Twelve women who experienced CB at a single center in Canada were interviewed using an open-ended, semi-structured interview guide at six weeks postpartum. Two researchers coded the emerging themes separately and compared findings. RESULTS: Women described feeling informed, but felt they did not have a choice. Presurgery, women wanted more information about the risks of CB. Preoperatively, women expressed confusion with the procedures, but felt informed about local anesthesia and thermoregulation. Post-CB, women felt informed about pain and nausea control; however, urinary catheter removal was delayed when compared to the ERAS recommendations. Information about postpartum infant care was not well communicated, as many women were uninformed about delayed cord clamping and infant thermoregulation. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study provides opportunities to improve communication, the patient-practitioner relationship, and the overall satisfaction throughout the CB process. The findings support the implementation of patient decision aids and training with the shared decision model. The improved procedures recommended in the ERAS IG for CB have the potential to deliver significant improvements to patient care and patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".