MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388735910 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.5093

Influence of pregnant women in contexts of vulnerability’ relationship with nurses on their prenatal nursing care experience

2023· article· en· W4388735910 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Émilie Hudon, Catherine Hudon, Édith Ellefsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingNonprobability samplingVulnerability (computing)Qualitative researchContext (archaeology)Content analysisNursing careMedicinePsychologyCredibilityPopulationPrenatal careEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Developing a relationship of trust with pregnant women is very important during prenatal primary care. This is especially true for women in contexts of vulnerability, to ensure they feel comfortable expressing their concerns and challenges. This relationship of trust will guide nurses throughout their interventions. Considering that pregnant women frequently present a combination of vulnerabilities, we need to better understand their experience of their relationship with nurses during prenatal primary care. The research question was “How does the nurse-pregnant woman relationship influence prenatal care experience?” Study design: We used a qualitative interpretative descriptive research design (Thorne, 2016). Setting: Community health services ensuring vulnerable pregnant women’s follow-up in the Province of Quebec (Canada). Population studied: Pregnant women in contexts of vulnerability, 16 years old and over, in their second or third trimester, or having given birth in the previous year, who received prenatal nursing care through community health services. Recruitment was conducted using a purposive sampling. Outcome measures: We conducted 24 semistructured interviews with pregnant women in contexts of vulnerability on their prenatal nursing care experience. Analysis was performed using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (QUAGOL) approach from De Casterlé, Gastmans, Bryon and Denier (2012). The analysis method included a constant comparative process and co-coding to ensure study credibility. Results: Women characterized the relationship by the presence or absence of reciprocity, trust, and decision-making authority. These characteristics were not exclusive. A perception of a positive relationship with nurses included comfort in confiding in the nurse, responsiveness to the pregnant women’s expectations and needs, the women’s limitation in the consultation of other informational resources, motivation to see the nurse again, and the decision to continue prenatal follow-up. Conclusions: The Nurse-pregnant women in contexts of vulnerability’s relationship influences the experience of prenatal nursing care. A positive relationship was one of the elements that the women appreciated most during their follow-up. However, this was not the case for all women. Development of this relationship should take into account each woman’s expectations and needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207