MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414072754 · doi:10.1177/13558196251376146

Challenges, benefits, and strategies for delivering pregnancy care to people with disabilities: A qualitative study of service providers and decision-makers in Ontario, Canada

2025· article· en· W4414072754 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lesley A. Tarasoff, Yona Lunsky, Keat Welsh, Laurie Proulx, Meredith Evans, Susan M. Havercamp, Simone N. Vigod, Hilary K. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Services Research & Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Arthritis Patient AlliancePublic Health OntarioThe Scarborough HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsQualitative researchService providerHealth carePregnancyService delivery frameworkService (business)Prenatal care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectivesTo (1) understand the challenges and benefits of providing pregnancy care to people with disabilities and (2) identify strategies to address challenges, from the perspectives of health care and social service providers and decision-makers.MethodsWe undertook a qualitative descriptive study in Ontario, Canada, of 31 health care and social service providers and decision-makers. Participants completed semi-structured interviews about their education, training, and clinical or administrative experience working with pregnant and/or parenting people with physical, sensory, and intellectual or developmental disabilities, including challenges and benefits in pregnancy care provision, programming, and policies, as well as their recommendations to improve care. We took a directed content analysis approach.ResultsParticipants identified challenges in providing pregnancy care to people with disabilities, including a lack of data to inform care, the influence of social determinants of health on disabled people's lives, inadequate infrastructure, poor coordination and communication across services, minimal disability-related training, and ableist attitudes among providers. Benefits to providing pregnancy care for people with disabilities included becoming advocates for system-level change, personal fulfillment, opportunities to confront one's own biases, and development of humility related to the expertise of people with disabilities. Reflecting on these challenges and benefits, participants identified strategies for improving care, through creative resource-sharing solutions, accessibility measures, interprofessional and coordinated care, enhanced provider training, and respectful care approaches.ConclusionsFindings show the need for changes at system, institutional, and service provider levels to improve pregnancy care for people with disabilities.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0300.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Services Research & PolicySame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207