Preparing for Motherhood: Women with Intellectual Disabilities on Information Support Received During Pregnancy and Knowledge about Childbearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information about pregnancy and childbirth is frequently inaccessible to women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Our objectives were therefore to describe pregnancy and childbirth-related knowledge among women with IDD, perinatal informational support received, and the barriers and facilitators to obtaining this support. Using secondary data from a broader qualitative study on social support received by women with IDD during pregnancy and childbirth, we developed two case studies specific to informational support received during this period. Content analysis was used to analyze interview data. Both women with IDD possessed general perinatal knowledge. Factors influencing receipt of informational support included information format (e.g., written versus verbal instruction; group vs. one-on-one learning), level of autonomy, and caregiver involvement (formal and informal). Findings are consistent with previous research demonstrating that perinatal informational support is not always accessible to women with IDD. Accessible perinatal informational support may contribute to improved pregnancy outcomes and therefore should be a social and clinical priority.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".