MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1914647244

Does delivery volume of family physicians predict maternal and newborn outcome?

2002· article· en· W1914647244 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Klein, Andrea R. Spence, Janusz Kaczorowski, Ann Marie Kelly, Stefan Grzybowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeonatal intensive care unitApgar scorePregnancyBirth weightGestational ageObstetricsPediatricsObstetrics and gynaecologyFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The number of births attended by individual family physicians who practice intrapartum care varies. We wanted to determine if the practice-volume relations that have been shown in other fields of medical practice also exist in maternity care practice by family doctors. METHODS: For the period April 1997 to August 1998, we analyzed all singleton births at a major maternity teaching hospital for which the family physician was the responsible physician. Physicians were grouped into 3 categories on the basis of the number of births they attended each year: fewer than 12, 12 to 24, and 25 or more. Physicians with a low volume of deliveries (72 physicians, 549 births), those with a medium volume of deliveries (34 physicians, 871 births) and those with a high volume of deliveries (46 physicians, 3024 births) were compared in terms of maternal and newborn outcomes. The main outcome measures were maternal morbidity, 5-minute Apgar score and admission of the baby to the neonatal intensive care unit or special care unit. Secondary outcomes were obstetric procedures and consultation patterns. RESULTS: There was no difference among the 3 volume cohorts in terms of rates of maternal complications of delivery, 5-minute Apgar scores of less than 7 or admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit or the special care unit, either before or after adjustment for parity, pregnancy-induced hypertension, diabetes, ethnicity, lone parent status, maternal age, gestational age, newborn birth weight and newborn head circumference at birth. High- and medium-volume family physicians consulted with obstetricians less often than low-volume family physicians (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.586 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.479-0.718] and 0.739 [95% CI 0.583-0.935] respectively). High- and medium-volume family physicians transferred the delivery to an obstetrician less often than low-volume family physicians (adjusted OR 0.668 [95% CI 0.542-0.823] and 0.776 [95% CI 0.607-0.992] respectively). Inductions were performed by medium-volume family physicians more often than by low-volume family physicians (adjusted OR 1.437 [95% CI 1.036-1.992]. INTERPRETATION: Family physicians' delivery volumes were not associated with adverse outcomes for mothers or newborns. Low-volume family physicians referred patients and transferred deliveries to obstetricians more frequently than high- or medium-volume family physicians. Further research is needed to validate these findings in smaller facilities, both urban and rural.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations30
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207