Single Room Maternity Care Versus Traditional Maternity Care: A Cross-Sectional Study Examining Differences in Mothers’ Perceptions of Readiness for Discharge and Satisfaction and Health Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single room maternity care (SRMC) includes all aspects of the birth process (labour, delivery, postpartum) in a single room with a consistent team of healthcare providers. Traditional maternity care (TMC) involves having mothers labouring and delivering their baby in one room and then transferring to a room on another unit, which also means a transition in providers. Although many hospitals have transitioned to SRMC, there has been limited evidence to support their development. METHODS: This study was conducted in two large hospitals (one offering SRMC, the other TMC) in Western Canada. A cross-sectional between-subjects design was used to compare differences between SRMC and TMC. New mothers were asked to complete validated questionnaires. Health information was collected from administrative and health databases. The main outcomes included readiness for hospital discharge, mothers' satisfaction, newborn length of stay, and mother length of stay. Several covariates were examined. RESULTS: In total, 506 (292 SRMC; 214 TMC) mothers participated. Readiness for discharge and maternal satisfaction were significantly higher in SRMC. Although newborn and mother length of stay were significantly reduced in SRMC compared to TMC for univariate tests, mother length of stay was not significantly different when adjusting for other variables. CONCLUSIONS: There are positive health and psychosocial outcomes for mothers and newborns in the SRMC model of care compared to TMC. Since readiness for discharge and satisfaction are associated with positive maternal-infant interactions and transitions to community, SRMC could be the better approach. Further research should examine healthcare provider outcomes and implementation costs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".