MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392174848 · doi:10.2196/55701

Comparison of Spontaneous Pushing and Directed Pushing During the Second Stage of Labor Among Chinese Women Without Epidural Analgesia: Protocol for a Noninferior Feasibility Study

2024· article· en· W4392174848 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiasi Yao, Heike Roth, Debra Anderson, Hong Lu, Huijuan Rong, Kathleen Baird

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Stage (stratigraphy)MedicinePsychologyComputer scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Maternal pushing during the second stage of labor could influence labor progress and maternal-neonatal outcomes. Although the image of health care providers directing the laboring women to push during the second stage of labor could be commonly observed globally, this practice is not sufficiently researched and is questioned regarding its effectiveness and outcomes on the mother and baby. Meanwhile, a strategy referred to as "spontaneous pushing," which supports women to push by following their bodily urges, has been evaluated in several trials. However, in China, spontaneous pushing is not common practice. Notwithstanding the evaluation of spontaneous pushing, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support either strategies of directed pushing or spontaneous pushing. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test the feasibility of a future randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of spontaneous pushing and directed pushing during the second stage of labor for maternal and neonatal outcomes in China. METHODS: A nonrandomized, single-group, noninferiority feasibility study will be conducted in a public hospital in Hebei Province, China. In total, 105 women meeting the selection criteria will be recruited to receive the intervention (spontaneous pushing), while 105 sets of medical notes from women who received routine care (directed pushing) will be identified and reviewed to compare outcomes for both cohorts. A mixed methods approach will be used to assess primary outcomes (feasibility and acceptability) and secondary outcomes (effectiveness). RESULTS: Data collection took place between May and October 2023. A total of 110 women were invited to participate in the intervention of spontaneous pushing. Midwives' interviews were conducted and will be transcribed for analysis in March 2024. The data analysis is planned to be completed by May 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study will provide important information by conducting a full-scale clinical trial in the future as well as the potential facilitators and barriers of it. A future randomized controlled trial is likely to have considerable policy and funding impacts regarding pushing management during the second stage of labor and improvement in women's childbirth experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Register ChiCTR2300071178; https://tinyurl.com/mudtnbft. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/55701.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.005

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207