After the Unexpected: Ontario Midwifery Clients’ Experiences of Postpartum Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) varies worldwide. While there is abundant research to guide midwifery practice regarding the acute clinical management of PPH, there is less known about the psychological needs of clients and families following significant blood loss during birth, and no relevant research conducted in a Canadian setting. Methods: Analysis of qualitative data was conducted based on data from two focus groups and two online surveys with participants who had received midwifery care during at least one pregnancy and had experienced at least one PPH. Objective: The goal of this research was to describe the experiences of midwifery clients in Ontario who had suffered a PPH and to compare those findings to what is documented in existing literature. Findings: This study found a range of physical and emotional responses to the experience of PPH, ranging from no effect to short- or longer-term psychological trauma, which is consistent with a small but growing body of international studies. While the risk of delayed lactogenesis increases with PPH, most participants in this study reported no breastfeeding concerns. This study is unique in reporting on creative strategies families developed to cope with PPH. 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".