MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors Related to Childbirth Satisfaction

2004· article· en· W6922131729 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholar Commons (University of South Carolina) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildbirthPatient satisfactionLabor painMcGill Pain QuestionnaireScale (ratio)Rating scaleDescriptive statisticsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. A woman's satisfaction with the childbirth experience may have immediate and long-term effects on her health and her relationship with her infant, but there is a lack of current research in this area. Aim. This paper reports a study to examine multiple factors for their association with components of childbirth satisfaction and with the total childbirth experience. Method. A correlational descriptive study was conducted with 60 low-risk post-partum women, aged 18-46 years, with uneventful vaginal deliveries of healthy fullterm infants at two medical centres in the south-eastern United States. The Labor Agentry Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire and Mackey Childbirth Satisfaction Rating Scale and a background questionnaire were completed by women. Obstetrical data were collected from the medical record. Findings. Personal control was a statistically significant predictor of total childbirth satisfaction (P = 0.0045) and with the subscale components of satisfaction (self, partner, baby, nurse, physician and overall). In addition, having expectations for labour and delivery met was a significant predictor of satisfaction with own performance during childbirth. Conclusions. Personal control during childbirth was an important factor related to the women's satisfaction with the childbirth experience. Helping women to increase their personal control during labour and birth may increase the women's childbirth satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholar Commons (University of South Carolina)Same topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207