Women's experiences of living with obesity during pregnancy, birthing, and postpartum: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to explore and understand women's experiences of living with obesity during the perinatal period to support evidence-informed approaches to care. INTRODUCTION: The rising incidence of maternal obesity is a serious global health problem. Qualitative studies exploring the viewpoints of pregnant women living with obesity have shown that some women report negative experiences associated with pregnancy, with some instances of current care management practices being perceived as confronting, judgmental, and generally unhelpful. Synthesizing qualitative findings about the experiences of pregnant and postpartum women who live with obesity can provide important insights into the general needs of this population and current gaps in health care practice. INCLUSION CRITERIA: All settings in which women who live with obesity during their pregnancies and receive health care for pregnancy, birthing, and postpartum care will be considered. Studies published from 1995 onward will be included. The review will consider all studies that present qualitative data including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research, and feminist research. METHODS: The following databases will be searched for this review: CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), PsycINFO (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses will be searched for unpublished studies. Each study will be assessed by two independent reviewers. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion. Data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers. The JBI resources for meta-aggregation will be used to create categories and synthesized findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020214762.
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 | 0.117 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.004 |
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".