Women's Childbirth Experiences in the WILL Randomised Trial (When to Induce Labour to Limit Risk in Pregnancy Hypertension): A Mixed Methods Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: weeks' gestation' (intervention) or 'usual care at term' (control). DESIGN: Randomised trial. SETTING: Forty-two consultant-led maternity units, United Kingdom. POPULATION: 357/403 women randomised completed the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). METHODS: Mixed-methods analysis of the 22-item CEQ, assessing: 'Own capacity', 'Professional support', 'Perceived safety' and 'Participation'. Directed content analysis sorted free-text comments into themes covered by the CEQ and two additional themes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CEQ scores overall and by domain. RESULTS: In intervention (vs. control) groups, the CEQ was completed by 177/202, 88.1% (vs. 180/202, 89.1%) participants, and 378 free-text comments were made by 93/177, 52.5% (vs. 98/180, 54.4%) participants. There was no significant difference in CEQ scores overall (3.1 ± 0.4 vs. 3.1 ± 0.4, respectively) or by domain ('Own capacity' [2.8 ± 0.5 vs. 2.7 ± 0.5, respectively]; 'Professional support' [3.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.7 ± 0.6, respectively]; 'Perceived safety' [3.2 ± 0.6 vs. 3.1 ± 0.6, respectively]; and 'Participation' [2.6 ± 0.7 vs. 2.7 ± 0.6]). Most comments were positive (222/378, 58.7%), and about 'Relational care and care interactions' (CEQ 'Professional support'). Neither the number nor positivity of comments appeared to differ between groups. CONCLUSION: For women with chronic or gestational hypertension who remain well at term, we found no difference in childbirth experience between women randomised to planned early term birth versus usual care at term. Shared decisions about timing of birth may be more influenced by differences in clinical outcomes and costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 77258279.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".