Recreating the Village: The Patient Experience with Group Perinatal Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Group perinatal care (GPC) offers a “one stop” approach to clinical care and perinatal education. It has been shown to be associated with high levels of patient satisfaction and improved clinical outcomes. Co-facilitation of GPC (including postpartum care) by midwives (MW) and family medicine residents (FMR) in a family health team (FHT) has not been previously assessed. Objective: To explore the experience of participants in the academic FHT model of GPC. Study design: Descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews with participants who had completed GPC. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted by team members. Setting: Academic family health team (FHT), Toronto, Canada. Participants: 18 patients who had participated in GPC at the Mount Sinai Academic FHT who delivered between November 7, 2016 and October 26, 2018. Findings: The major theme was the value of the relationships established and the positive consequences of those relationships. Participants describe relationships with health care providers that were built on comprehensiveness, continuity and credibility. Relationships with other GPC participants were facilitated but also developed organically, continued outside the structure of GPC and persisted well beyond perinatal care. The consequences of these relationships included creating support networks, shared knowledge and experience with their partners, improved self-confidence during the pregnancy and labour journey, decreased anxiety and extended commitment to breastfeeding. Conclusions: Participants in GPC at the Mount Sinai Academic FHT, in essence, became part of a social network for their labour, birth and early parenting journey by developing relationships with their healthcare providers, partners and fellow participants through the group process. This resulted in informational and emotional support which positively affected their experience. In particular, the contributions to self-confidence and decreased anxiety deserve further exploration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".