MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367312951 · doi:10.11124/jbies-22-00246

Experiences of women who have planned unassisted home births in high-resource countries: a qualitative systematic review

2023· review· en· W4367312951 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Macdonald, Melissa Helwig, Erna Snelgrove‐Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)Dalhousie UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource (disambiguation)Qualitative researchMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to identify, appraise, and synthesize the qualitative evidence about the experiences of women in high-resource countries who have planned unassisted home births. INTRODUCTION: Unassisted birth occurs when a woman chooses to give birth without the assistance of health care providers. These births are planned and usually occur in a woman's home. It is difficult to know the prevalence of unassisted birth because it occurs at the margins of health care systems, making data difficult to collect. Based on its lack of visibility in society, we assume that unassisted birth is not a common birth choice. Women who choose planned unassisted birth may face stigma for their decision and their experience of birth, which challenge accepted norms. Synthesizing qualitative evidence about women's experiences of planned unassisted birth can improve our understanding about women's birthing values and provide important clues about aspects of birthing care that may be missing in mainstream birthing services. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies that explored the experiences of women who had planned unassisted home births without the support of health care providers in high-resource countries were included. Unassisted home births were defined as those that were planned not to be assisted by health care professionals. Study designs that focused on qualitative data were eligible for inclusion. METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest), and Nursing and Allied Health Database (ProQuest) were searched in 2022. Studies published in English since the databases' inception were considered for inclusion. A search of relevant websites for unpublished and gray literature was also undertaken in 2022. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of papers identified for inclusion. Qualitative research findings were extracted from papers that met the inclusion criteria and critical appraisal standard. Findings were extracted and categorized based on similarity of meaning. The categories were synthesized to create 2 synthesized findings, and the ConQul approach was used to grade the findings to establish confidence in the synthesized findings. RESULTS: Six studies were included in the review. All the studies used interviews for data collection; other methods included surveys, email correspondence, posts on internet discussion boards and forums, and websites. The total sample size for interviews was 103 participants. Total survey sample size for surveys was 87 participants. Total sample size for email correspondence was 5. Internet data sources included more than 100,000 individual and forum posts and 127 birth stories. A total of 17 findings were extracted and grouped into 4 categories. The 4 categories were then synthesized into 2 synthesized findings: i) navigating tensions within self, and between self and systems, and ii) integrating and transcending physical experiences of birth. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to better understand the experiences of women who have planned unassisted births. Improving understanding and increasing the awareness of planned unassisted birth are necessary steps for promoting inclusive, relational, and person-centered birthing experiences for everyone. Reflection about the differences between planned unassisted births and mainstream births may support needed reorientations of perinatal services. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019125242. SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT: A French-language version of the abstract of this review is available [ http://links.lww.com/SRX/A9 ].

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207