Experiences of labour and childbirth among physicians in Canada: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about physicians' birth experiences and the perceived relation between physicians' professional status and their birth outcomes, particularly in nonsurgical specialties. This study aimed to explore the birth experiences of physicians in Canada and to determine their perception of the relation between their profession, and their birth experiences and obstetric outcomes. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative descriptive study consisting of in-depth interviews with practising physician birthing parents, all members of the Canadian Physician Mothers Group (online Facebook community) who had deliveries between 2016 and 2021. Data were analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen interviews were conducted. Half of the participants worked in primary care specialties. From participants' narratives, we developed 5 themes pertaining to physicians' birth experiences: (negative impact of) professional culture of medicine whereby professional responsibility trumped personal needs; (mixed) impact of medical knowledge whereby participants felt empowered to make decisions and ask questions, but also experienced augmented stress due to knowing what could go wrong; difficulty stepping out of physician role; privileged access to care; and belief in negative impact of physician role on birth outcome. Some participants suggested possible reasons that physicians may have worse birth outcomes than the general public. INTERPRETATION: The professional culture of medicine was largely perceived as a negative, in particular, the pressure to deny one's own needs for the good of patients and colleagues. Physicians' increased access to medical care combined with their higher levels of anticipatory anxiety around childbirth could be exposing them to increased monitoring and surveillance, thus augmenting the likelihood of medical and surgical interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".