The Experience of Postpartum Care Practices among Parent and Healthcare Providers in Canada: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, postpartum care and support are variable. The purpose of this study was to synthesize qualitative evidence to explore the postpartum care experience of parents and healthcare providers. Eight electronic databases were consulted, and 37 qualitative research articles published between 1990 and 2023 were selected. Data were extracted and managed using NVivo™ 14 computer software. Thomas and Harden’s (2008) framework for thematic synthesis guided the analysis and was further informed using an intersectional lens. Eight themes were identified: Access to timely and unhurried care, Supporting physical and emotional needs, Proficient provider knowledge and communication skills, Challenges in accessing postpartum support and care, Barriers in understanding and in being understood, Lack of provider support and sensitivity, Addressing unique needs and building trusting relationships, and Provider role ambiguity and disconnection from families. The findings from this study can inform postpartum education and practice in providing an individualized approach to postpartum 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 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 | 0.033 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".