Maternity providers’ moral experiences addressing maternal drug use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundAddressing drug use among pregnant and postpartum women is complicated by the social, ethical, and legal interplay between maternal and child needs. The moral experiences of providers as they care for this population are poorly understood. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the qualitative literature on the moral experiences of prescribing maternity providers managing the care of pregnant and postpartum women who use drugs (PPWUD), specifically focused on drug testing and child welfare reporting decisions.MethodsThe Hunt and Carnevale (2011) bioethics framework was used to define moral experience as "a person's sense that values that he or she deem important are being realized or thwarted in everyday life." A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL resulted in 31 eligible articles. Study quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research from the Joanna Briggs Institute (2015). Thematic narrative analysis was used to synthesize results and identify themes.FindingsOverall, maternity providers' experiences were characterized by ethical conflicts influenced by provider-level and policy-level factors. Even when endorsing patient autonomy and parental rights, no maternity providers endorsed continued maternal substance use that placed the fetus or child at significant risk. Structural constraints within healthcare systems and punitive laws were cited as significant barriers to providing optimal care to PPWUD. Biased drug testing protocols and some child welfare reporting policies created ethical conflict by placing maternity providers' relationship with their patients in opposition to their legal and ethical responsibility to report child maltreatment.ImplicationsMore rigorous characterization of these moral experiences is needed to support the development of provider-level interventions and policy-level changes as maternity providers care for both mothers and children impacted by drug use.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".