Preconception needs and experience of people with mobility disability: Qualitative study of people with lived experience and clinical experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to qualitatively examine preconception health and counseling experiences of people with mobility disabilities through evaluation of personal lived and professional experiences. METHODS: From March 2023 to July 2023, we conducted a descriptive qualitative study of free-text responses collected as part of a larger Delphi study involving a convened panel of experts, including physicians, researchers, and individuals with lived experience of mobility disability, in preconception care and education for individuals with mobility disabilities. Participants were identified by a systematic review of published and gray literature and purposive sampling. Free -text responses were collected from waves of the Delphi study survey questions and analyzed using constant comparison analysis to develop thematic results from the raw data through comparison of experiences, beliefs, and concepts noted within and between respondents. RESULTS: The participants (n = 17) in this study were a group of experts on preconception health and disability, including individuals living with mobility disabilities (n = 7) as well as physicians and researchers in fields related to pregnancy and disability (n = 10). Four major themes were identified: strong patient interest in preconception counseling, ableist perceptions strongly affect the presence and quality of preconception counseling, implicit barriers to preconception counseling and pregnancy planning, and expectations and concerns about a multidisciplinary approach to preconception counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized preconception health is of great interest to women with disabilities, and there are clear knowledge and communication barriers to optimal evaluations of preconception risk and interventions to improve health before and during pregnancy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Preconception education should be personalized to the specific medical needs and social challenges present for people with mobility disabilities considering pregnancy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".