Relationships, roles and person-centred practices – collaborative birthing care in Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Collaboration is an important factor in creating and maintaining safe and effective spaces in perinatal healthcare. Family-centred care has been used by perinatal nurses to provide care that focuses on the family. Woman-centred care is defining for midwifery, and centres care around women’s expert knowledge and decision making. Person-centred care extends these approaches to include all persons involved in healthcare. The ongoing integration of midwives into existing perinatal healthcare teams in Canada has created new opportunities for collaboration. Understanding how midwives and nurses collaborate can offer insights into how collaboration is influenced by different approaches. Aim: The aim of this study was to understand how midwives and nurses collaborate in Nova Scotia, Canada. Methods: Feminist poststructuralism guided this case study. The data collected included 17 individual participant interviews, document review and field notes. Feminist poststructuralist discourse analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: The two main themes discussed in this article were negotiating roles and practices, and sustaining relationships. In the first theme, participants talked about how they negotiated their roles, how their skills and practices crossed over and the importance of communication and anticipation. In the second theme, participants described how they test trust, the ways in which midwives depend on nurses, and a need for more opportunities to work, learn and socialise together. Conclusion: The relationships between midwives and nurses in Nova Scotia support their collaboration and contributions to ensuring their workplaces are safe and effective. The participants described intuitive engagement with person-centredness. Implications for practice: The Person-centred Practice Framework should be used to facilitate collaboration in perinatal healthcare Individual, institutional and systemic commitments to intentional engagement with practice development are needed to support healthful cultures in perinatal healthcare Research is needed to explore how family-centred and woman-centred care approaches may support person-centred practices and cultures
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".