Achieving international consensus on the concept of woman-centred care: A Delphi study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM: There is no internationally-informed understanding of how midwives perceive woman-centred care and use it in practice. BACKGROUND: Woman-centred care is integral to the role of the midwife and to determining standards of practice. Few empirical studies have explored the meaning of woman-centred care, and those that have are limited to country specific research. AIM: To gain an in-depth understanding and consensus on the concept of woman-centred care from an international perspective. METHODS: A three round Delphi study was conducted, with surveys distributed online to a group of international expert midwives to draw consensus on the topic of woman-centred care. FINDINGS: A panel of 59 expert midwives representing 22 countries participated. Fifty-nine statements about woman-centred care, of which 63% of statements reached the 75% a priori agreement level, were developed and categorised under four emergent themes: defining characteristics of woman-centred care (n = 17), the role of the midwife in woman-centred care (n = 19), woman-centred care and systems of care (n = 18), woman-centred care in education and research (n = 5). DISCUSSION: Participants agreed that woman-centred care should be provided by any health care professional in any health care setting. Systems of maternity care should provide holistic care tailored for the individual woman rather than subject her to routine practices and policies. Although continuity of care is important to midwifery practice, it was not reported as a core characteristic of woman-centred care. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to investigate the concept of woman-centred care as it is experienced globally by midwives. The findings of this study will be used to contribute to the development of an internationally informed evidence-based definition of woman-centred care.
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 | 0.220 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".