Exploring satisfaction among women having a First Nations baby at one of three maternity hospitals offering culturally specific continuity of midwife care in Victoria, Australia: A cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Continuity of midwife care is recommended to redress the inequitable perinatal outcomes experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (First Nations) mothers and babies, however more evidence is needed about First Nations women's views and experiences of their care. Aims: This study aimed to explore levels of satisfaction among women having a First Nations baby, who received maternity care at one of three maternity services, where new culturally specific midwife continuity models had been recently implemented. Methods: Women having a First Nations baby who were booked for care at one of three study sites in Naarm (Melbourne), Victoria, were invited to complete one questionnaire during pregnancy and then a follow up questionnaire, 3 months after the birth. Results: Follow up questionnaires were completed by 213 women, of whom 186 had received continuity of midwife care. Most women rated their pregnancy (80 %) and labour and birth care (81 %) highly (‘6 or ‘7′ on a scale of 1–7). Women felt informed, that they had an active say in decisions, that their concerns were taken seriously, and that the midwives were kind, understanding and there when needed. Ratings of inpatient postnatal care were lower (62 %), than care at home (87 %). Conclusions: Women having a First Nations baby at one of three maternity services, where culturally specific, continuity of midwife care models were implemented reported high levels of satisfaction with care. It is recommended that these programs are upscaled, implemented and sustained.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".