MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415186371 · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2025.109389

Preconception needs and experience of people with mobility disability: Qualitative study of people with lived experience and clinical experts

2025· article· en· W4415186371 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Davis, Amelia Gabor, Jennifer L. Stephens, Michael McKee, Hilary K. Brown, Kara Ayers, Anne Valentine, Willi Horner‐Johnson, Monika Mitra, John A. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Education and Counseling · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough Hospital
FundersAdministration for Community LivingNational Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation ResearchU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsLived experienceQualitative researchSocial needsSocial supportPhoto elicitationNeeds assessmentQualitative analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 venuePatient Education and CounselingSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207