MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411379577 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094607

What matters to you? Improving the adoption of shared decision-making for birth planning in women with chronic hypertension: a multicentre multiple methods study

2025· article· en· W4411379577 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca Whybrow, Lucy C. Chappell, Louise Webster, Joanna Girling, Heather Brown, Hannah Wilson, Marcus Green, Jane Sandall

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South LondonNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineThematic analysisFamily medicineQualitative researchPregnancyNursingHealth careObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the role of shared decision-making (SDM) in the implementation of evidence-based practice in women with chronic hypertension planning birth and investigate the barriers and the facilitators in the provision of antenatal care. METHODS: A multimethod multisite approach was used including case-note review (n=55) and structured observations (n=18) to assess the provision of third trimester antenatal care. The barriers and facilitators to implementation were identified from semistructured qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals (n=13) and pregnant women (n=14) using inductive thematic analysis. The findings were integrated and evaluated using the 'Three Talk Model of Shared Decision-making'. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women with chronic hypertension, some with superimposed pre-eclampsia and their principal carers at three National Health Service hospital trusts. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals delivering care to pregnant women with high blood pressure were aligned with most communication practices (set out in the Calgary-Cambridge communication guide). Pregnant women with hypertension who described being engaged in shared decisions about birth developed a trusting relationship with their maternity team. Despite frequent caesarean section birth (52%) and early term birth (median gestation at delivery 38 weeks (IQR1 37 weeks, IQR3 39 weeks) identified by case-note review; integrated data (observations, case-note review and qualitative interviews) found pregnant women with high blood pressure were not regularly provided with personalised information based on what they would find helpful, encouraged to share their own thoughts or offered choice in relation to timing or mode of birth. Uncertainty regarding the evidence around optimal timing of birth was the main barrier identified by professionals. Facilitators included training for professionals in SDM, midwife-led antenatal classes for high-risk women and multiprofessional clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to promote more widespread adoption of SDM are likely to improve the experiences of women with high blood pressure making decisions about childbirth.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicMaternal and fetal healthcare→French-language works237,207→