A qualitative study of predelivery counselling for extreme prematurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain from parents of neonates born before 27 weeks' gestational age how to improve predelivery counselling for delivery room resuscitation. METHODS: Qualitative ethnographic study using semistructured, face-to-face interviews of 10 families. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative method. RESULTS: Parents had no previous knowledge about prematurity. They would have preferred prioritized information during predelivery counselling focused on the immediate risks to their child. Resuscitation wishes were inconsistently sought. Opportunities for repeat discussions involving both parents were often missed. Parents agreed that the opportunity to explicitly state resuscitation wishes should be offered. Additional materials, such as pamphlets or videos, would improve counselling. CONCLUSIONS: Information about prematurity should be offered when the pregnancy is deemed high risk, with repeat counselling opportunities for both parents to discuss options. Once the decision is made to resuscitate, parents want the neonatal team to convey a message of hope and compassion.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".