MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4224242203 · doi:10.3390/ijerph19095081

Mother’s Loneliness: Involuntary Separation of Pregnant Women in Maternity Care Settings and Its Effects on the Experience of Mothers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2022· article· en· W4224242203 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paulina Malarkiewicz, Stanisław Maksymowicz, Maria Libura

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessChildbirthFeelingAngerPregnancyMedicinePandemicSadnessQuarter (Canadian coin)InjusticePsychologyPsychiatryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Family medicineObstetricsDiseaseSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study was to investigate the challenges of involuntary separation experienced by women during pregnancy and childbirth in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was conducted by the means of a self-administered questionnaire. One thousand and eleven women (1011) from Poland took part in the study, with an average age of approximately 30 years. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Warmia and Mazury University in Olsztyn, Poland. The results show that the majority of the surveyed women experienced involuntary separation from their partners during pregnancy and childbirth: 66.27% had no choice but to give birth alone and 84.37% had not been able to attend medical appointments with their partners. Solitary encounters with healthcare were associated with the feeling of fear (36.4%), anger (41%), a sense of injustice (52.2%), acute sadness (36.6%) and a sense of loss (42.6%), with all the reported levels higher in younger women. Over 74% of respondents were afraid of childbirth without a partner present. Almost 70% felt depressed because of a lonely delivery experience. Nearly a quarter of the mothers surveyed declared that if they could go back in time, they would not have made the decision to become pregnant during the pandemic. Based on our study, we found that adjustments to prenatal and neonatal care arrangements under COVID-19-related regimens are needed. Our proposal is to implement at least three fundamental actions: (1) risk calculations for pandemic-related cautionary measures should take into account the benefits of the accompanied medical appointments and births, which should be restored and maintained if plausible; (2) medical personnel should be pre-trained to recognise and respond to the needs of patients as a part of crisis preparedness. If the situation does not allow the patient to stay with her family during important moments of maternity care, other forms of contact, including new technologies, should be used; (3) psychological consultation should be available to all patients and their partners. These solutions should be included in the care plan for pregnant women, taking into account a risk-benefit assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health→Same topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum→French-language works237,207→