Parents' Experiences with Postpartum Support Groups using Videoconferencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore new parents' experiences with web-based videoconferencing as a mechanism of offering postpartum virtual support groups. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Virtual support sessions and individual interviews were conducted to explore participants' experiences with virtual postpartum groups. RESULTS: Thirty-seven parents participated in seven virtual support sessions and 19 participated in individual interviews. Participant narratives centered on perceptions of safety when engaging in virtual support groups. Tools within the virtual space (camera; mute) created a relational paradox which provided safeguards but also hindered the building of trust. Participants described negotiating the fear of harm and judgment within virtual spaces alongside feelings of security in connecting from the safety of their homes. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The virtual environment provides a forum for new parents to access information and support and an avenue for engagement with maternal child nurses and care providers. Awareness of how parents perceive safety in the virtual environment is an important part of facilitating and structuring parent groups on videoconferencing platforms. Nurses should be familiar with videoconferencing technology and be able to guide parents. Experience facilitating virtual groups to ensure safety and security while providing needed support is a valuable nursing skill.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".