The impact of exclusion due to COVID‐19 restrictions on partners' satisfaction with Swedish hospital postnatal ward care: A multi‐methods approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2, hospitals around the world adopted protocols that, in varying ways, resulted in the exclusion of partners from hospital postnatal care wards. The objective of this study was to examine the effect this exclusion had on partners' satisfaction with postnatal care. METHODS: An online survey (the Swedish Pregnancy Panel) including free-text comments was conducted before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic; partners of pregnant women were recruited at an early ultrasound appointment and followed until 2 months after childbirth. Data were linked to the Swedish Pregnancy Register. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 524 partners of women who gave birth during the pandemic and 203 partners of women who gave birth before. Partners' satisfaction with hospital postnatal care dropped 29.8 percent (-0.94 OLS, 95% CI = -1.17 to -0.72). The drop was largest for partners of first-time mothers (-1.40 OLS, 95% CI = -1.69 to -1.11), but unrelated to clinical outcomes such as mode of birth and most social backgrounds, except higher income. The qualitative analysis showed that partners (1) felt excluded as partners and parents, (2) thought the strain on staff led to deficiencies in the care provided, and (3) perceived the decision about partner restrictions as illogical. CONCLUSIONS: The exclusion of partners from the hospital postnatal wards clearly impaired satisfaction with care, and partners of first-time mothers were particularly affected. Planning for future restrictions on partners from hospital wards should factor in these consequences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".