TRV-2026-1557Certified recordPeer-reviewed

Whose Knowledge Counts in Labour? Obstetric Nurses Negotiating Clinical Judgement, Algorithmic Authority and Woman-Centred Care in Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Foetal Monitoring

Artificial intelligence-enhanced foetal monitoring is entering intrapartum care, yet little is known about how it reshapes the credibility of nursing knowledge, professional authority and relational practice. This interpretive description study explored how obstetric nurses negotiated clinical judgement, autonomy and woman-centred care while working with an artificial intelligence-enhanced cardiotocography system in a physician-led tertiary maternity service in Saudi Arabia. Semi-structured interviews with 18 ob…

Health · Problem Space — documented harm · certified 2026-10-16 · v1 · article view · machine-readable

Current reading — problem

When nurses' judgement diverged from AI-enhanced cardiotocography output, they faced asymmetric accountability and had to translate embodied, relational knowledge into algorithm-compatible language to gain recognition.

What this doesn’t fix

The study is a qualitative interview study of 18 nurses in one physician-led tertiary maternity service in Saudi Arabia, so findings reflect nurses' experiences in a single setting rather than measured clinical outcomes.

Evidence

Reader signal

How should this claim be treated?

Cite this record

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-1557, v1: “Whose Knowledge Counts in Labour? Obstetric Nurses Negotiating Clinical Judgement, Algorithmic Authority and Woman-Centred Care in Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Foetal Monitoring.” Truvace, 2026-10-16. /record/TRV-2026-1557 (accessed at citation time). sha256 726541b2fa151738…

Calibration history

Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.

  1. Certifiedv1726541b2fa15…

    Certified into the record

Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page

Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-1557 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.