MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405171562 · doi:10.1016/j.auec.2024.11.002

First Nations women’s experiences of out-of-hospital childbirth: Insights for enhancing paramedic practice – A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4405171562 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arwen Wilkinson, H Findlay, Jayne Lawrence, Linda Deravin

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Emergency Care · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildbirthNursingMedicineBusinessProcess managementPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Birthing on Country principles in Australia have seen a revitalisation in midwifery care over the last decade with it being seen as a metaphor for the best start to life for First Nations peoples. This scoping review aimed to explore the extent of evidence of Australian First Nations women's experiences of out-of-hospital childbirth and the alignment with Birthing on Country principles to inform paramedic practice. METHODS: Four databases were searched including MEDLINE, CINAHL, EBSCOhost Health and Scopus utilising the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for Scoping Reviews. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified. All articles were reviewed in a two stage process. RESULTS: Fifty two papers were yielded with 6 meeting the inclusion criteria. Using reflective thematic analysis four key themes were generated; Birthing on Country and identity, inequitable access to healthcare, trusting relationships and medicalisation of birth. CONCLUSIONS: There is a large gap in the literature surrounding delivery of care by paramedics to First Nations women birthing out-of-hospital in Australia. This review proposes supports and actions required to implement Birthing on Country principles into paramedicine. Further, standard maternity care has been found to be insufficient for First Nations women due to a lack of culturally safe care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Emergency CareSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207