Midwives’ perception of the effects of footbaths for women in labor: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Footbaths are generally used for women in labor in clinical settings in Japan. However, it is unclear how their effects are perceived by midwives, or what effects they expect. Therefore, this study aimed to describe midwives’ perception of footbaths’ effects for women in labor. This cross-sectional study was conducted during January–March, 2022. Participants were midwives who worked at perinatal medical centers in the Kanto region. Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data. A total of 364 midwives were asked to participate; of these, 291 (79.9%) responded to the questionnaires. The participants’ mean age was 35.6 years old, and 120 (41.2%) had graduated from vocational schools. The average clinical experience was 12.1 years. Regarding the effects of footbaths, 274 (94.2%) participants selected “relaxes,” whereas 166 (57.0%) selected “strengthens uterine contractions.” These effects were related to educational attainment and the source of information about the effects of footbaths. Midwives’ perception of footbaths’ effects differed; thus, it is necessary to conduct studies which clarify the effects of footbaths in the future and to disseminate the results.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".