Care and services partnership in Quebec birthing centres: myth or reality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context Working with women to best meet their needs has always been central to midwifery in Quebec, Canada. The creation of birthing centres at the end of the 1990s consolidated this desire to prioritize women’s involvement in perinatal care and was intended to encourage the establishment of a care and services partnership between care providers and users. The aim of this pilot study is to evaluate the perceptions of clients, midwives and birth assistants of the way in which women are involved in partnership working in Quebec birthing centres. Methods A single qualitative case and pilot study was conducted with midwives (n = 5), birth assistants (n = 4), a manager (n = 1), clients (n = 5) and members of the users’ committee (n = 2) at a birthing centre in Quebec, Canada in July and August 2023. The partnership was evaluated using the dimensions of a validated CADICEE questionnaire. Results The women and professionals stressed that the relationship was established in a climate of trust. The caregivers also attached importance to autonomy, information sharing and decision-making, adaptation to context, empathy and recognition of the couple’s expertise. The women confirmed that they establish a relationship of trust with the professionals when the latter show empathy and that they adapt the follow-up to their knowledge and life context. Key factors in establishing this kind of care relationship are the time given, a de-medicalized environment, the comprehensive care received, and professionals who are well-informed about the partnership. In addition, the birthing centre has a users’ committee that can put forward ideas but has no decision-making powers. Conclusions Both the women and the professionals at the birthing centre appear to be working in partnership. However, at the organizational level, the women are not involved in decision-making. A study of all birthing centres in Quebec would provide a more comprehensive picture of the situation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.114 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".