Listening to First Nations women’s voices, hearing requests for continuity of carer, trusted knowledge and family involvement: A qualitative study in urban Darwin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM: Australian First Nations women are more likely to commence care later in pregnancy and underutilise maternal health services than non-First Nations women. BACKGROUND: Disrespectful maternity care is a major barrier to care-seeking in pregnancy, often resulting in later commencement and underutilisation of care. AIM: We aimed to identify barriers and enablers to pregnancy-related care-seeking for Australian First Nations women living in the Darwin region through yarning about their experiences of pregnancy care. METHODS: Ten Australian First Nations women shared stories about their pregnancy care journeys. Yarns took place at a time and location determined by the women, with recruitment continuing until saturation was reached. FINDINGS: Emerging themes included a desire for continuity of carer, particularly with midwives; access to trustworthy information, enabling informed decision-making; and a need to have family involved in all aspects of care. No specific barriers were identified within this cohort DISCUSSION: Universal access to continuity of carer models would provide women with the relational care they are asking for as well as address other identified needs, such as a desire for information relevant to their pregnancy; and space for partners/family members to be involved. The themes that emerged provide a picture of what a positive, respectful pregnancy care experience could be for First Nations women within the Darwin Region, thus enabling care-seeking in pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Although the public sector and Aboriginal Controlled Community Health Organisations currently provide continuity of carer models, robust systems ensuring these models are made available to all women are lacking.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".