A Systematic Review to Explore Antenatal Care From the Perspectives of Women With Intellectual Disabilities and Midwives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background During pregnancy, some women with an intellectual disability encounter some challenges, and some midwives who provide them with support lack the knowledge to provide the best care. This systematic review explores the experiences of women with intellectual disability during pregnancy and midwives' experiences of providing care. Method Four databases were searched (PubMed, CINHAL, PsycINFO and Web of Science) and the resultant studies were appraised for quality using CASP. The selected papers were published between January 2012 and December 2022 and originated from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Canada and Ireland. Results Eight studies were included: five examined the experiences of pregnant women with intellectual disability, one investigated the midwives' experiences of caring and two analysed both groups. The primary themes amongst women included pregnancy announcements, involvement in their care and fear of losing their baby custody. The midwives expressed their lack of readiness and need for additional support. Both groups recognised the necessity for improved education and accessible communication. Conclusion Women with intellectual disabilities who are in the context of this review revealed their requirement for improved education and assistance in understanding antenatal information. The midwives within the included studies felt inadequately prepared to support women with intellectual disabilities: they lacked specialist training and required additional support in health education and communication skills.
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".