Registered Midwives’ Experiences and Self-Assessed Competence with Sexual Health Counselling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pregnancy and the postpartum period raise many sexual health concerns for women. Registered midwives (RMs) care for an increasing proportion of Canadian pregnancies. The study objective was to assess RMs’ experiences providing sexual health counselling. Methods: A 22-item questionnaire exploring RMs’ experiences, competence, and comfort, as well as barriers to discussing sexual health, was distributed electronically to British Columbian RMs. Results: Of 330 RMs, 91 (28%) responded. The majority of midwives reported discussing sexual health concerns with greater than 75% of clients (49/91 [53.8%]). Most estimated the time spent was less than 30 minutes over the pregnancy (69/91 [76%]). Common topics were sexual activity postpartum (82/91 [90.1%]), contraception (89/91 [97.8%]), and cervical cancer screening (86/91 [94.5%]). Less than half discussed sexual problems, including pain or low desire. RMs rated themselves highly competent and comfortable addressing sexual health. However, many identified lack of training, time, and cultural differences as barriers. Respondents cited desire for community resources and training in the areas of contraception, pain and, low desire. Conclusions: British Columbian RMs feel confident addressing many sexual health concerns during pregnancy but cited lack of training as a common barrier. Investment in educational resources for RMs may help to improve sexual health care for all Canadian women. This article has been peer reviewed.
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 | 0.009 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".