An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Perinatal Experiences in an Acute Setting during Early Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic was highly disruptive for people delivering babies in-hospital and for obstetrical healthcare professionals. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of people with or without COVID-19 giving birth in a community-based hospital to provide patient insight to obstetrical care providers regarding the services/policies used during the pandemic. Nine interviews were conducted with participants within six months of giving birth in-hospital – four who tested positive for COVID-19 and five who tested negative. Seven themes were identified in the analysis: conflicting emotions; experiences of COVID-related protocols; altered experiences of pregnancy and birth; other aspects of in-hospital care; support from family and friends; interactions and communications with the healthcare team; and seeking information. Results were positively received by the perinatal clinical team and changes were identified to further improve experiences of care. A deeper understanding of patients' lived experiences of hospital services available during public health emergencies can offer important, actionable information for healthcare providers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".