Comparing birth experiences and satisfaction with midwifery care before and after the implementation of Canada’s first Alongside Midwifery Unit (AMU)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, midwifery-led birthing units are associated with favourable clinical outcomes and positive birth experiences. As part of our evaluation of Canada's first Alongside Midwifery Unit (AMU) at Markham Stouffville Hospital, we sought to explore and compare birth experiences and satisfaction among midwifery clients who gave birth on the AMU with midwifery clients who gave birth on the traditional obstetric unit prior to AMU implementation. METHODS: We conducted a structured, online, cross-sectional survey of midwifery clients in the six months before, and up to 18 months after, opening of the AMU at Markham Stouffville Hospital, Ontario Canada. The survey contained validated measures of satisfaction including personal capacity and participation; perceived safety, control, and security; professional support; and satisfaction. Descriptive statistics and tests of significance were completed in SPSS. RESULTS: A total of 193 responses were included in our analyses (pre-AMU n = 47, post-AMU n = 146). All participants had positive experiences in the four domains assessed. Compared to those who gave birth with midwives on the Labour unit, those who gave birth on the AMU indicated more positive experiences for some measures. Perceptions pertaining to being an active participant in care, to security and sense of control were more positive among those who gave birth on the AMU. CONCLUSION: The AMU in Ontario is associated with high levels of satisfaction during birth, particularly the perception of being actively engaged in decision making, having a sense of control and safety, and having confidence in the care provider team. Care received on the AMU does not compromise birth experiences or satisfaction and may be associated with greater autonomy and agency for the person giving birth.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".