Information Needs and Experiences From Pregnancies Complicated by Hypertensive Disorders: a Qualitative Analysis of Narrative Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundIncorporation of the patient voice is urgently needed in a broad array of health care settings, but it is particularly lacking in the obstetrical literature. Systematically derived information about patients’ experience with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), most notably preeclampsia, is necessary to improve patient-provider communication and ultimately inform patient-centered care and research. We sought to examine the information needs and experiences of individuals with pregnancies complicated by hypertensive disorders. MethodsWe conducted a qualitative content analysis of narrative-responses to an open-ended question from an online registry hosted by the Preeclampsia Foundation. Individuals were invited to enroll in The Preeclampsia Registry via social media, web searches, and newsletters. We restricted our analysis to participants who self-reported a history of HDP and responded to the open-ended question, “Is there any information that you could have had at the time of this pregnancy that would have been helpful?”. Available responses from July 2013 to March 2017 were included. Narrative responses were coded, reconciled, and thematically analyzed by multiple coders using an inductive approach. Our main outcome measures included participants’ expressed needs and additional concerns with respect to their HDP pregnancy.ResultsOf 3202 enrolled participants, 1850 completed the survey and self-reported having at least one pregnancy complicated by HDP, of which 895 (48.4%) responded to the open-ended question. Participants delivered in the United States (83%) and 27 other countries. Compared to non-responders, responders reported more severe HDP phenotypes and adverse offspring outcomes. We identified three principal themes from responses: patient-identified needs, management and counseling, and potential action. Responses revealed that participants’ baseline understanding of HDP, including symptoms, management, therapeutic strategies, and postpartum complications, was demonstrably lacking. Responders strongly desired improved counseling so that both they and their providers could collaboratively diagnose, appropriately manage, and robustly and continuously communicate to facilitate a partnership to address any HDP complications.Conclusions Participants’ responses regarding their HDP experience provide indispensable insight into the patient’s perspectives. Our study suggests that improved education regarding possible HDP complications and enriched provider counseling when considering an HDP diagnosis are needed and efforts to implement these strategies should be sought. Trial registrationThe Preeclampsia Registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02020174
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 | 0.024 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".