Experiences of women in early labour sent home following hospital assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Labour and birth is a life event common to many women yet the physical process, in addition to psychological, social, and spiritual experiences, is unique to each woman. A woman under the care of a physician will come to a hospital when she believes she is in labour. If she is in active labour, the woman is admitted to hospital. If in early labour, the woman is often sent to walk within the hospital prior to reassessment as walking can contribute to progress in labour, or she is sent home. There is limited information about the phenomenon when a woman in early labour is sent home until she is admitted in active labour. Combining the elements of early labour and known possible psychosocial outcomes of birth, this qualitative study explored the experiences of women sent home in early labour within the context of one hospital site in Canada, having 4000 births annually. In-depth interviews with 10 postpartum women within 48 hours of birth yielded the data that were analyzed through a qualitative approach using interpretive description defined by Thorne, Reimer-Kirkham and MacDonald-Emes (1997), and using methods of analysis as outlined by Giorgi (2012). Themes resulting from this analysis were: Conflict between knowledge of labour symptoms and women’s initial responses; background influences and current pregnancy concerns; impact of the unspoken; experiences of pain and coping; and influence of others. Through literature integration it was concluded that all women experience an overwhelming anxiety that may empower/disempower their self-efficacy, confidence, communication with self/others and their coping. Suggestions for practice include a culture of open access to the assessment area and a focus on communication with women in early labour to better understand their individual needs and provide support to decrease anxiety and fear, increase confidence and foster empowerment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".