Canadian Women's Experience of Postnatal Care: A Mixed Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The postnatal period remains unstandardized in terms of care and postnatal visits with a dearth of information on the experience from Canadian women. PURPOSE: To explore (1) with whom and how often women receive postnatal follow-up visits and (2) the postnatal care experiences of Canadian mothers. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, women who had given birth within the past 6 months were recruited to complete an online survey. Frequencies were computed for quantitative outcomes and thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses. RESULTS: A total of 561 mothers completed the survey. Women saw on average 1.9 different postnatal healthcare providers, primarily family doctors (72.4%). 3.2% had no postnatal visits and 37.6% had 4 or more within 6 weeks. 76.1% women were satisfied with their postnatal care. Women's satisfactory care in the postnatal period was associated with in-person and at home follow-ups, receiving support, and receiving timely, appropriate care for self and newborn. Unsatisfactory care was associated with challenges accessing care, experiencing gaps in follow-up visits, and having unsatisfactory assessment for their own recovery. CONCLUSION: There is considerable variation in the timing and frequency of postnatal visits. While many women are experiencing satisfactory care, women are still reporting dissatisfaction and are facing challenges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".