Mediating expectations and experiences that influence birth experiences in Canada's first Alongside Midwifery Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, midwifery-led birthing units are associated with excellent maternal and neonatal outcomes, and positive childbirth experiences. However, little is known about what aspects of midwife-led units contribute to favorable experiences and overall satisfaction. Our aim was to explore and describe midwifery service user experiences at Canada's first Alongside Midwifery Unit (AMU). METHODS: We used a qualitative, grounded theory approach using semi-structured interviews with recipients of midwifery care at the AMU. FINDINGS: Data were collected from twenty-eight participants between September 2018 and March 2020. Our generated theory explains how birth experiences and satisfaction were influenced by how well the AMU aligned with expectations or desired experiences related to the following four themes: (1) maintaining the midwifery model of care, (2) emphasizing control and choice, (3) facilitating interprofessional relationships, and (4) appreciating the unique AMU birthing environment. CONCLUSION: Canada's first AMU met or exceeded service-user expectations, resulting in high levels of satisfaction with their birth experience. Maintaining core elements of the midwifery model of care, promoting high levels of autonomy, and facilitating positive interprofessional interactions are crucial elements contributing to childbirth satisfaction in the AMU environment.
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 | 0.000 | 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".