MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7082092733

Factors affecting women's choice of birthplace : a literature review

2018· article· en· W7082092733 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSophiahemmet University Library (Sophiahemmet University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildbirthHome birthPlace of birthHome ChildbirthCenter (category theory)Birth controlBirth rateHealth care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the world's industrialized countries, most women give birth to their children in hospitals, a birthplace that has become the norm. In Sweden, hospital birth and home birth are the options available. About 0.1 percent of women in Sweden are planning a home delivery but the interest is about 10 times higher. In Sweden, there is no birth center available; which is a midwife's birth clinic where continuity and normal deliveries are in focus. The interest in delivery in a birth center among women in Sweden is about 27 percent. Aim: The aim of this study is to describe factors affecting women's choice of birthplace. Method: The method used in this paper is a general literature study, with a total of 17 articles from the United States, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Holland, England, New Zealand and Australia. Result: In the result it emerged that the different birthplaces had in part the same factors motivating the women. These factors were the attitude towards the childbirth process, access to birthplace choice, safety, environment, pain relief and intervention and influence. There were also unique themes for each birthplace. Home delivery was the birthplace that had the most unique factors, such as control and empowerment, the family's participation and attitudes in society and care. Unique for childbirth at a birth center was localization and continuity with the healthcare provider. The study found no unique factors for hospital birth. The factors for home birth and hospital birth were each other’s opposites, while childbirth at a birth center was something in between. Conclusion: The women in the present essay all had common factors that affect their choice of place of birth. But also, unique individual factors depending on their own preferences. The women who had safety as a priority saw birth as something dangerous and sought a hospital birth. While women who prioritized an intervention-free birth without medical pain relief and routine drugs, sought home birth and birth at a birth center. Keywords: Hospital childbirth, Home childbirth, Birth center childbirth, Choice, Decisionmaking.

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSophiahemmet University Library (Sophiahemmet University)→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→