MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408372906 · doi:10.3390/bs15030348

Understanding Parenting and Pregnant Women’s Perceptions of Accessing, Utilizing, and Barriers to Seeking Social Support for Mental Well-Being

2025· article· en· W4408372906 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Saima Hirani, Nilanga Aki Bandara, Vicky Bungay

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSocial supportThematic analysisSocioeconomic statusPerceptionPsychologyFocus groupMental healthDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchSocial psychologyMedicineSociologyPopulationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social support has been considered essential for enhancing mental well-being. However, perceptions of support are crucial for promoting psychological well-being, which is shaped by one's social position across axes of socioeconomic status and gender. This study sought to improve understanding of how pregnant and parenting women living in socioeconomic challenging circumstances perceive social support in order to identify what is working and what needs improvement in mobilizing existing support services. Virtual focus group discussions were conducted with twenty-four women living in British Columbia, Canada. Five themes emerged using thematic analysis: lived realities of motherhood; types of social support women access; barriers they face when accessing support; impact of the pandemic on support services; and women's recommendations to improve support services. Our findings inform a better understanding of women's contextual realities in which they live and the need for inclusive supportive approaches for women and their families.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral SciencesSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207