MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1563787670

Does experience or delivery volume of family physicians predict maternal and newborn outcomes?

2004· letter· en· W1563787670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ann Marie Kelly, Michael Klein, Janusz Kaczorowsk, Stefan Grzybowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)MedicineLogistic regressionFamily medicineProxy (statistics)PediatricsDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our article showing that maternal and newborn outcomes at delivery were similar for physicians with high and low obstetric volume1 generated speculation among our colleagues that perhaps volume and outcomes were correlated with experience. To answer this question, we re-analyzed the original data to determine if a proxy measure of experience — years in practice — was associated with maternal and infant outcomes. We divided the family physicians in our study into 3 groups on the basis of date of graduation from medical school: 1950 to 1977 (49 doctors, 1403 births), 1978 to 1987 (46 doctors, 1572 births) and 1988 to 1995 (53 doctors, 1458 births). We redid the logistic regression as described in our paper,1 using years of practice and adjusting for delivery volume and maternal and fetal characteristics. We used ≤ 7 as the cutoff for 5-minute Apgar scores in both analyses. There were statistically significant differences in parity and demographic characteristics of the mothers according to family physicians' time since graduation. Physicians with more years since graduation had more multiparous women in their practices than physicians with fewer years since graduation (52% v. 44%, p < 0.001). The proportion of white women was also different among physician groups (40% for the group with the most years since graduation, 51% for the intermediate group and 38% for the group with the fewest years since graduation, p < 0.001). Physicians with the most years since graduation attended more deliveries for women over 35 years of age than physicians with the fewest years since graduation (23% v. 19%, p = 0.002). Our original paper1 showed no difference in maternal and infant outcomes by physician volume. When we factored in years since graduation, we found significantly higher rates of admission to any special care nursery and lower 5-minute Apgar scores for physicians with fewer years since graduation than for physicians with more years since graduation at our original level of statistical significance of 0.05, after adjustment for physician delivery volume, maternal demographic characteristics and maternal risk factors (Table 1). However, delivery volume was still not a statistically significant predictor of outcomes. Therefore, it seems that years of experience has a greater effect on outcomes than volume of deliveries. We believe that in analyzing the data according to physician experience, we are considering an outcome of possible clinical importance because, although Apgar scores are subjective, the responsible family physician requires a pediatrician to support an admission to a special care nursery. But because the odds ratios are not large and the cutoff level of significance is only 0.05, it would be prudent not to overstate the association between experience and newborn outcome. We suggest that when researching the outcome of birth according to delivery volume or when addressing other important outcomes in physician maternity and newborn practice, experience as indicated by years since graduation or other proxies should be taken into consideration. The recommendation of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada on number of births to maintain competence still stands:2 that is, there is no minimum number of births recommended to maintain competency. The consistency in outcomes by delivery volume in our study is reassuring, and we believe it is a result of ongoing professional development and quality assurance programs in our hospital. However, our results can be considered valid only for highly resourced centres such as ours. Table 1 Ann Kelly Departments of Health Care and Epidemiology and of Family Practice University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC Michael C. Klein Department of Family Practice University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC Janusz Kaczorowski Departments of Family Medicine and of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics McMaster University Hamilton, Ont. Stefan Grzybowski Department of Family Practice University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→