The Use of Hypnosis during the Perinatal Period: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aims to identify current protocols involving the use of hypnosis during the perinatal period and to examine its effects on mothers' well-being. Seven electronic databases were searched for articles published from 1960 to April 1, 2021, that assessed the effectiveness of hypnosis during the perinatal period. All published randomized, controlled trials and nonrandomized, controlled trials studies assessing the effectiveness of hypnosis used during the perinatal period with healthy adult women were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions or the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Article screening, methodological-quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Twenty-one articles, corresponding to 16 studies met inclusion criteria. Apart from 2 studies, all included studies reported the benefits of implementing a hypnosis intervention during the perinatal period. However, methodological limitations relative to intervention implementation and assessment methods might have led to the observed variability in results across studies. Future studies should consider a more standardized methodology.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".