Patient Preferences for Outcomes Associated With Labor Epidural Analgesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Patient preferences for labor epidural analgesia (LEA) have been incompletely evaluated. This study aimed to determine the importance of various LEA outcomes to both antenatal and postpartum patients. Methods This was a cross-sectional study approved by the institutional ethics board. Questionnaires were distributed to two separate and distinct cohorts screened for eligibility: pregnant patients at an antenatal visit and postpartum patients during childbirth admission. A list of common LEA outcomes was compiled using research published in leading anesthesia journals. Participants ranked the outcomes according to perceived importance. They assigned each a number from 1 to 10 (priority ranking; 1 indicated the highest priority outcome and 10 the least). They were also asked to 'spend' $100 towards the outcomes (relative value scale), allocating more money to outcomes more important to them. Results Two hundred twenty questionnaires were completed (105 antenatal, 115 postpartum). 'Achieving desired pain relief' was the most important outcome for both cohorts. It was valued more by the postpartum cohort (Median $50 (25 - 60) vs $30 (18 - 50)). 'Overall satisfaction with the pain management,' 'experiencing a short time to achieve pain relief,' and 'experiencing a short duration of labor' received more money than avoiding various LEA-related side effects. The postpartum cohort ranked 'experiencing a short time to achieve pain relief' as more important than the antenatal cohort (Median 5 (3 - 7) vs 3 (2 - 5)). Conclusions Achieving the desired pain relief was the highest LEA outcome preference for both antenatal and postpartum patients. Avoiding side effects was less important relative to pain-related outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".