MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999359904

Constrained Care: Doula Practice and Hospital Birth

2020· dissertation· W6999359904 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2020
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsChildbirthIdeal (ethics)Work (physics)DeferencePosition (finance)Health careMaternity care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doulas offer emotional, physical, and informational support to women during pregnancy, childbirth, and the early postpartum period. Their model of practice is based on providing continuity of care and helping clients feel well supported regardless of how their birth proceeds. In hospitals, these efforts are complicated by doulas’ lack of formal status in the health care system and by the medical model of birth, which views childbirth as a clinical event rather than one that requires support and encouragement. Presently, little is known about how these “complications” shape doulas’ work in hospitals. As more women train and practice as doulas, it is critical to understand the nature of their working conditions and their capacity to deliver their ideal model of care. I asked: How do doulas accomplish their work in hospitals? To explore this question, I conducted interviews with 26 doulas working in Toronto, Canada. I invited participants to describe the work involved in providing client support, their interactions with hospital staff, the overall demands of their role, and their level of satisfaction with doula practice. My analysis brought together data about the particularities of doulas’ work practices with feminist critiques of medicalized childbirth and the gendered organization of care work. I found that doulas’ position in hospitals created several challenges. Many participants reported an inability to perform their ideal model of care without tiptoeing around staff, a need to show deference to medical authority and appear as if they were not challenging the medical model of birth (even if that was their aim), and an implicit obligation to perform work outside of their scope of practice to assist busy nurses and ensure that their clients received adequate care. These demands were in addition to the considerable challenge of providing women with comfort and support during childbirth – a task that required a great deal of emotional labour – and the commitment involved in providing continuity of care. My findings suggest that the current model of doula practice is unsustainable and the challenges doulas face in hospitals highlight broader deficiencies in the organization and delivery of maternity care.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.373 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207