MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283313549 · doi:10.1111/birt.12641

Coercion and non‐consent during birth and newborn care in the United States

2022· article· en· W4283313549 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Logan, Monica R. McLemore, Zoë Julian, Kathrin Stoll, Nisha Malhotra, Saraswathi Vedam

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEthnic groupContext (archaeology)Coercion (linguistics)Health carePrenatal careFamily medicineObstetricsPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the United States, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) experience more adverse health outcomes and report mistreatment during pregnancy and birth care. The rights to bodily autonomy and consent are core components of high-quality health care. To assess experiences of coercion and nonconsent for procedures during perinatal care among racialized service users in the United States, we analyzed data from the Giving Voice to Mothers (GVtM-US) study. METHODS: In a subset analysis of the full sample of 2700, we examined survey responses for participants who described the experience of pressure or nonconsented procedures or intervention during perinatal care. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses by racial and ethnic identity for the outcomes: pressure to have perinatal procedures (eg, induction, epidurals, episiotomy, fetal monitoring), nonconsented procedures performed during perinatal care, pressure to have a cesarean birth, and nonconsented procedures during vaginal births. RESULTS: Among participants (n = 2490), 34% self-identified as BIPOC, and 37% had a planned hospital birth. Overall, we found significant differences in pressure and nonconsented perinatal procedures by racial and ethnic identity. These inequities persisted even after controlling for contextual factors, such as birthplace, practitioner type, and prenatal care context. For example, more participants with Black racial identity experienced nonconsented procedures during perinatal care (AOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.35-2.64) and vaginal births (AOR 1.87, 95% CI 1.23-2.83) than those identifying as white. In addition, people who identified as other minoritized racial and ethnic identities reported experiencing more pressure to accept perinatal procedures (AOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.08-2.20) than those who were white. DISCUSSION: There is a need to address human rights violations in perinatal care for all birthing people with particular attention to the needs of those identifying as BIPOC. By eliminating mistreatment in perinatal care, such as pressure to accept services and nonconsented procedures, we can help mitigate long-standing inequities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBirthSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207