Communication and decision-making of cesarean sections in China: an exploration of both obstetricians’ and patients’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses doctor-patient communication about C-sections (CSs) in Shanghai, China. Specifically, we examine the information discrepancies between obstetricians’ and patients’ perceptions of CS and the important factors affecting shared decision-making. We conducted semi-structured individual interviews with 12 postnatal women who experienced CS and with 12 obstetricians. We identified barriers to patient-doctor communication and shared decision-making: obstetricians’ lack of time in outpatient prenatal visits to explain the implications of CSs, family members’ knowledge and opinions on CSs, and information from media and social networks. The lack of communication between the expectant women and the obstetricians was driving the women’s distrust in the latter. The lack of obstetricians’ time to communicate with the pregnant woman led to low trust in the medical staff and overutilization of CS, whereas a lack of financial resources led to underutilization of CS. The obstetricians suggested providing expectant women with more education programs and midwifery support.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".