Women's experiences of changes to childbirth and parenting education in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic: The birth in the time of COVID-19 (BITTOC) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As changes to Childbirth and Parenting Education (CBPE) classes during the COVID-19 pandemic remain unexplored in Australia, our objective was to understand how changes to CBPE in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted on women's birth and postnatal experiences. METHODS: Survey responses were received from 3172 women (1343 pregnant and 1829 postnatal) for the 'Birth In The Time Of Covid-19 (BITTOC)' survey (August 2020 to February 2021) in Australia. One of the survey questions asked women if they had experienced changes to CBPE class schedules or format during the pandemic, with a follow up open ended text box inviting women to comment on the impact of these changes. The majority of women experienced changes to CBPE, with only 9 % stating they experienced no changes to classes. A content analysis was undertaken on the 929 open text responses discussing the impact these changes had on women's experience of pregnancy, birth and postpartum. RESULTS: 929 women (29 %) made 1131 comments regarding changes to CBPE classes during the pandemic. The main finding 'I felt so unprepared', highlights how women perceived the cessation or alteration of classes impacted their birth preparation, with many reporting an increased sense of isolation. Some women reported feeling 'It was good enough' with adequate provision of online classes, and others feeling 'I was let down by the system' due to communication and technological barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the importance of ensuring continued provision of hybrid/online childbirth education models to enable versatility during times of crisis. Gaps in service provision, communication and resources for childbirth and parenting education need addressing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".