L’expérience vécue de la professionnalisation des étudiant·es sages-femmes au regard de l’accouchement physiologique en contexte de modèle sage-femme de continuité des soins : une étude qualitative descriptive interprétative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issue. Despite international consensus supporting a physiological approach to childbirth and the midwife continuity of care model, educational institutions have little guidance for practice-based training. Aim and objectives. This study aims to understand the lived experience of midwifery students' professionalisation with regard to physiological birth in the context of clinical placements in Québec birth centres. Specific objectives are: 1) to describe and understand the learning experiences related to physiological birth, as well as the transformations experienced in becoming a midwife supporting physiology; and 2) to analyze perceived barriers and facilitators to professionalisation related to physiological birth. Method. A descriptive-interpretive approach, employing Bélisle's conceptual framework of professionalisation in the context of initial training, was used. Data was collected through post-birth audio diaries (n=126) from midwifery students (n=7) and preceptors (n=7) during placements in birth centres; discussion groups with students who contributed to the audio diaries; and individual interviews with key informants. A thematic analysis was carried out. Results. Three main themes and six sub-themes, reflecting the process of learning and transformations to support physiological childbirth, were identified: 1) Appropriation of culture: relational autonomy; 2) Development of competencies: attitude of acknowledgement, enabling behaviors, narrative skills; 3) Construction of identity: coherence and resistance. Nine barriers and seven facilitators, including socio-political, professional, interdisciplinary, educational and interpersonal contexts, offer a systemic perspective on what influences the professionalisation regarding physiological birth. Conclusion. This study contributes to the overall understanding of midwifery students' professionalisation in physiological birth by highlighting the crucial role of continuity of care and preceptorship in an optimal environment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".