How is patient‐centred care conceptualized in obstetrical health? comparison of themes from concept analyses in obstetrical health‐ and patient‐centred care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to gender inequities that exist for women of childbearing age, there exists a need to deliver care tailored to their needs and preferences. Patient-centred care (PCC) can be used to meet these needs. This review aims to compare patient care delivery between PCC and obstetrical care. This can help us address how PCC should be delivered to women before, during and after pregnancy versus how it is delivered to patients regardless of sex. METHODS: A review of literature was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS for English PCC and high-quality perinatal reviews published between 2010 and 2021. The data were analysed using a modified Walker and Avant framework. RESULTS: A total of 2138 unique studies were identified, with 11 PCC and 9 high-quality obstetrical care studies included. Common defining features between PCC and obstetrical care include respect and dignity, informed decision-making, therapeutic alliance, effective communication, social relationships and autonomy. PCC-specific features were holistic care, empowerment, individualized care, coordinated care and empathy. Unique high-quality obstetrical care themes included continuity of care, privacy and confidentiality, provider education and status, physical environment and equitable maternal care. CONCLUSIONS: There are shared defining attributes between PCC and obstetrical care, including respect and dignity, informed decision-making, the therapeutic alliance, effective communication, social relationships and autonomy. However, there remain unique defining attributes for high-quality obstetrical care and PCC. This highlights the need for a unique approach to obstetrical care. More research on care for different physiological conditions in women is needed to address patient care that addresses different parts of the lifespan and develop frameworks that can influence health policy, patient care and health system evaluation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was one part of a larger, multicomponent study of how to implement PCC for women across the lifespan. While we did not specifically consult or involve women in this dual concept analysis, our larger study (content analysis of clinical guidelines and government policies, qualitative interviews with women and clinicians, Delphi study to prioritize consensus recommendations for achieving PCC for women) was guided by the experiences and input of a 50+ women advisory panel.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | medium |
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".