Women- and clinician- important outcomes and priorities regarding vasa praevia: An international qualitative study to inform development of a core outcome set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies have reported interventions for women with vasa praevia to improve perinatal outcomes. However, which outcomes are important for women remains unclear. AIM: To explore what outcomes are important for women with lived experience of vasa praevia and why, in order to inform the development of a core outcome set for studies on vasa praevia. METHODS: An international qualitative study was conducted with women and clinicians. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed taking an inductive approach. FINDINGS: Eighteen women and six clinicians (four obstetricians, two midwives) from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia were interviewed. Participants identified 47 patient-important outcomes and experience measures, which were grouped under five themes: baby's survival and health, mother's physical health, mother's mental and emotional health, quality of health care delivery, and resource use and cost. While survival of the baby without short- and long-term morbidity remained the main priority, other important considerations included the physical, mental, social and financial wellbeing of families, future access to antenatal screening and diagnosis, information on management options and consequences, continuity of care, clear and effective communication, peer support and the appreciation of individual variations to risk tolerance, values and resource availability. CONCLUSION: We have identified patient-important outcomes and experience measures that have been directly fed into the development of a core outcome set on vasa previa. Incorporating these considerations into both clinical practice and future research studies has the potential to improve outcomes and experiences for women with vasa praevia.
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 | 0.000 | 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".