Trust, privacy, community, and culture: Important elements of maternity care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women giving birth in Victoria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Australian maternity system must enhance its capacity to meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (First Nations) mothers and babies, however evidence regarding what is important to women is limited. Aims: The aim of this study was to explore what women having a First Nations baby rate as important for their maternity care as well as what life stressors they may be experiencing. Methods: Women having a First Nations baby who booked for care at one of three urban Victorian maternity services were invited to complete a questionnaire. Results: 343 women from 76 different language groups across Australia. Almost one third of women reported high levels of psychological distress, mental illness and/or were dealing with serious illness or death of relatives or friends. Almost one quarter reported three or more coinciding life stressors. Factors rated as most important were privacy and confidentiality (98 %), feeling that staff were trustworthy (97 %), unrestricted access to support people during pregnancy appointments, (87 %) birth (66 %) and postnatally (75 %), midwife home visits (78 %), female carers (66 %), culturally appropriate artwork, brochures (68 %) and access to Elders (65 %). Conclusions: This study provides important information about what matters to women who are having a First Nations baby in Victoria, Australia, bringing to the forefront social and cultural complexities experienced by many women that need to be considered in programme planning. It is paramount that maternity services partner with First Nations communities to implement culturally secure programmes that respond to the needs of local communities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".