MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409444773 · doi:10.11124/jbies-24-00398

Health care experiences and expectations of individuals with severe maternal morbidity in high-income countries: a qualitative systematic review protocol

2025· article· en· W4409444773 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Atkinson, Rohan D’Souza, Danielle B. Rice, Meredith Vanstone, Susan M. Jack

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLCritical appraisalMedicineHealth careMEDLINESystematic reviewInclusion (mineral)Qualitative researchFamily medicineNursingPsychological interventionPsychologyAlternative medicinePolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe the health care experiences and expectations of people living in high-income countries who have had severe maternal morbidity (SMM). It will expand on findings from 2 earlier reviews highlighting structural and systemic factors influencing care to inform health care recommendations. INTRODUCTION: Severe maternal morbidity describes conditions and complications during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum associated with severe illness, debilitation, prolonged hospitalization, and high fatality rates. In higher-income countries, SMM is an important indicator of health care quality. With rates of SMM increasing around the world (disproportionately among some populations), and recognizing suboptimal care as an important modifiable risk factor, this review will focus on the health care experiences and expectations of people who have had SMM to reveal opportunities for maternal health care improvement. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This review will include qualitative studies published since 1999 involving individuals in high-income countries who have experienced SMM. Studies will describe participants' health care experiences and expectations (or both) during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum. METHODS: Using the JBI approach for qualitative systematic reviews, we will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, and ProQuest for qualitative studies available in English. We will then screen titles and abstracts using the predetermined inclusion criteria to select articles for full-text review and critical appraisal. All relevant findings will be extracted from each included study, assessed for credibility, and then pooled and synthesized using JBI's meta-aggregation approach to develop a set of findings that can be used to make health care recommendations. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024569572.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207