Exploring how pregnant women in a remote northern community select a delivery location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives and preferences of pregnant women receiving prenatal care in a rural community regarding delivery location. DESIGN: Exploratory qualitative research project. SETTING: The La Ronge Medical Clinic in northern Saskatchewan. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women of any parity aged 18 years or older who attended the clinic for prenatal care from March 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, were invited to participate. The closest obstetric and surgical services are 240 km away. METHODS: This project was undertaken using semistructured interviews. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis, taking into consideration both saturation and analyst triangulation. The investigators and researchers on this project were family medicine residents and faculty in a remote medical clinic. MAIN FINDINGS: The factors that played a substantial role in influencing the patients' decisions regarding delivery location included access to medical services, proximity to home community, perceptions of medical care providers, and some unique features of local hospitals. The participants largely believed they maintained their autonomy in selecting their preferred delivery location while seeking input from their prenatal care providers and families. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women in this rural community consider many factors when deciding on their delivery location. These findings can be taken into consideration by physicians when discussing with their rural patients the risks and benefits of delivery in both rural and urban centres. Barriers to local delivery should be addressed, while maintaining a woman's autonomy to choose where she gives birth.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".