Pre-University Students’ Attitudes and Beliefs about Childbirth: Implications for Reproductive Health and Maternity Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine pre-university students’ attitudes and beliefs about childbirth and identify key sources of information and knowledge.Methods: A survey of 359 Quebec pre-university students (215 female, 144 male) was undertaken to identify sources of beliefs about birth and opinions about types of maternity care providers and place/method of delivery. Results: Prime sources for birth beliefs were family (50.7% female, 39.9% male) and media (21.9% female, 33.6% male). The dominant preferred birth model was hospital vaginal delivery attended by an obstetrician. The students’ birth preferences reflected strong support for professional supervision/intervention and skepticism about the safety of home birth and out-of-hospital birth centres. Although 9.3% of female students and no males would choose elective cesarean section (CS) for themselves or partner, 71.2% of female students and 42.4% of male students agreed that CS is “just another way of having a baby.” Most female students believed “it is a woman’s right to choose CS for herself ” and had a higher preference/acceptance of CS, compared with male students. Students characterized birth as “painful” and “miraculous” and agreed on its relative safety. Female students were more fearful and more stressed about the prospect of birth, compared with male students. Over 75% of female students were aware of the benefits of breastfeeding and planned to breastfeed. Conclusions: Most students supported in-hospital maternity care and perceived CS as normal but did not express a preference for CS for themselves or their partners. Students were unaware of the risks/benefits of CS, epidurals, and out-of-hospital birth. These findings highlight the need for health care professionals to engage young adults and to provide them with evidence-based information about maternity care options.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".