A qualitative study of parents' experiences with prematurity antenatal consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Antenatal consultations (AC) are an opportunity to provide anticipatory guidance about preterm birth to parents and facilitate their involvement in healthcare decisions. Literature shows that contextualization and eliciting family beliefs and values is essential, but there is limited discussion about how acknowledging those beliefs and values by clinicians is perceived by parents in AC. The research question is: (How) does the integration of family context (FC), beliefs and values shape patient experience of antenatal counselling? Study Design: This is an exploratory secondary analysis of interviews with eleven parents. A flexible coding strategy was used with a thematic analysis that drew on some methods from grounded theory. Results: Three themes comprising the parental experience of the prematurity antenatal consultation were identified. Parental experiences begin with a whirlwind of unknown, wherein parents feel caught in unanticipated, unknown frenzy of potentially delivering prematurely. Parents rationalized the need for this overwhelming but necessary discussion, but at times question how it was approached. Finally, they used two core methods to cope with this uncertainty; hope and human connection, both rooted in clinician integration of their FC, beliefs and values. Conclusion: This study reinforces the necessity of acknowledging and addressing parental needs identified by understanding their context, beliefs and values, regardless of gestational age or perceived medical complexity by the healthcare professional.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".