EXPLORING NON-PREGNANT PARTNER SUPPORT DURING PERICONCEPTION: A QUALITATIVE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Periconception care primarily focuses on the pregnant person. Despite numerous studies showing the biological and the psychosocial contributions of the non-pregnant partner on the health of the pregnancy, this evidence is poorly recognized by the public or by clinicians. We set out to describe non-pregnant partners' perceptions of their biological and social contributions to a healthy pregnancy and where they get information on how to support their pregnant partner. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 Canadian residents whose partners were either pregnant or had given birth in the past 18 months. Participants were recruited using flyers, social media, community organizations, and personal/professional networks. Data analysis and semi-structured interviews about experiences supporting pregnancy and information-seeking behaviours were guided by constructivist grounded theory. Results: We found that interactions with healthcare providers, information gathering, norms and stereotypes, exposure to preconception health and pregnancy, relationship dynamics, and self-concept, role & responsibilities are factors that influence how non-pregnant partners perceive their role in pregnancy. Most non-pregnant partners are not aware of the sperm’s role in supporting the developing fetus and placenta and largely recognize emotional and instrumental supports as the most critical forms of social support for pregnant individuals. Supportive actions taken by non-pregnant partners included helping with household tasks, taking care of older children, easing worries, prioritizing exercise and healthy diet. Conclusion: Our study highlights the need for targeted interventions to communicate the importance of the biological and social contributions of the non-pregnant partner in a healthy pregnancy. This could improve non-pregnant partner health literacy and engagement during the pregnancy. By incorporating non-pregnant partners into periconception care and sharing resources about their supportive role in pregnancy and fetal health outcomes, periconception strategies can better address the non-pregnant partner’s unique roles, fostering healthier outcomes for families.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".