Health care providers’ experiences caring for women living with obesity during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review will examine qualitative evidence about the experiences of health care providers who provide care to women living with obesity during the perinatal period to support evidence-informed approaches to care. INTRODUCTION: As the number of women living with obesity increases, health care providers are interacting more with this population during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum. Qualitative studies about this topic show that health care providers often face challenges that prevent the provision of quality care. A qualitative systematic review of the experiences of health care providers caring for women living with obesity throughout the perinatal period is important to identify and address current gaps in the delivery of perinatal health care services. INCLUSION CRITERIA: All studies with settings where licensed health care providers care for women living with obesity during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum will be considered. Studies published in English from 1995 onward will be included. The review will consider both mixed methods and qualitative studies such as phenomenology, grounded theory, and participatory action research. METHODS: The following databases will be searched: CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest). The ProQuest Digital Dissertations database will be searched for unpublished studies. Two independent reviewers will assess each study. Conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Data will be extracted by 2 trained independent reviewers. JBI resources for meta-aggregation will be used and data will be categorized and synthesized accordingly.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".