Postpartum experiences of women, birthing people, and their families during COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the review is to explore and understand the postpartum experiences of birthing people and their families during COVID-19. INTRODUCTION: Positive postpartum experiences are formative for the long-term health and well-being of parents and babies. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has complicated the transition to parenthood and existing postpartum challenges through evolving policies and practices, including visiting limitations, masking requirements, and reduced accessibility of supports. Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on the postpartum experiences of women, birthing people (people who give birth but may not identify as women), and their families through the synthesis of qualitative evidence can help inform public health and government directives in comparable future contexts. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies including women, birthing people, and their families who experienced postpartum during the COVID-19 pandemic will be considered. This review will include studies published after January 2020 that explore postpartum experiences up to 1 year following birth. We will examine qualitative data, including, but not limited to, research designs such as phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, feminist research, and action research. METHODS: The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid), and LitCovid. PsyArXiv and Google Scholar will be searched for gray literature. Studies will be assessed and appraised independently by 2 reviewers and disagreements will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Data extraction will be completed by 2 reviewers. The JBI tools and resources will be used for assessing confidence and meta-aggregation, including the creation of categories and synthesized findings. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022364030.
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 | 0.005 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".