Scoping Review of Best Practice Guidelines for Care in the Labor and Birth Setting of Pregnant Women Who Use Methamphetamines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To use a scoping review to explore the existing literature on best practice guidelines for safe, dignified, and compassionate care in the labor and birth setting for pregnant women who use methamphetamines. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic search for articles and best practice guidelines from health-related databases (MEDLINE; CINAHL; and the Web of Science, including the Core Collection and Social Science Citation Index, PsycInfo, Women's Studies International, and Sociological Abstracts) and gray literature. Search terms included substance use disorder, methamphetamine, childbirth, and labor and delivery. STUDY SELECTION: We included English-language, peer-reviewed reports of primary research, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines from credible databases and organizations published between 1991 and 2020. We screened 1,297 resources and agreed to review 156 articles and 16 gray literature resources in the full-text analysis. Nine of the 156 articles and 16 gray literature resources met the inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: We used the Joanna Briggs Institute review guidelines (2015) criteria for extraction of the following data: author(s); year of publication; type of study; objectives; country of origin; study population and sample size (if applicable); inclusion of best practice guidelines for the labor and birth setting; care approaches specific to safety, dignity, compassion; and the targeted substance(s) discussed (e.g., methamphetamine, opioids, etc.). We further documented the phenomena of interest to determine if articles or best practice guidelines included safe, dignified, and compassionate care approaches specific to pregnant women who use methamphetamine. DATA SYNTHESIS: We summarized the best practice guidelines, which included universal screening, assessment, and management of analgesia during labor, as well as broad guidance regarding the inclusion of a multidisciplinary health care team. Safe, dignified, and compassionate care approaches were focused on communication, shared decision making, and the provision of nonjudgmental care. Although evidence about substance use during the childbearing years is increasing, stronger evidence for clinical care approaches in the labor and birth setting is needed, inclusive of all stakeholder perspectives. CONCLUSION: The articles and best practice guidelines reviewed provided broad clinical recommendations that were applicable to pregnant women who use methamphetamine. However, we did not find a complete comprehensive best practice guideline for labor and birth that was specific, was solution focused, and delineated a safe, dignified, and compassionate care approach.
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 | 0.113 | 0.370 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.057 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".