Family physicians in maternity care. Still in the game? Report from the CFPC's Janus Project.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe family doctors' contribution to maternity care in Canada and to observe the influence of age, sex, region of the country, and practice population on provision of maternity care. SURVEY: College of Family Physicians of Canada's Janus Project national family physician survey. SETTING: All 10 provinces and two territories. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of family physicians and general practitioners, both members and non-members of the College. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of family doctors participating in prenatal, intrapartum, postpartum, and newborn care, and proportion of doctors involved in intrapartum care by age, sex, location in Canada, and practice population. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 58%. Just over 50% of all family doctors in Canada are involved in some aspect of maternity care; 19% do intrapartum care; and 33% are involved in prenatal (shared) care. Similar proportions of men and women still do intrapartum care, but women care for more pregnancies than men. More family doctors serving rural areas are doing intrapartum care compared with doctors in urban areas, although those in urban areas tend to do more deliveries. The western provinces have the highest percentages of intrapartum caregivers. A gradual decline in percentage of intrapartum caregivers by age group increases among the 55- to 64-year-old cohort. Almost a quarter of women doctors younger than 35 years are doing intrapartum care. Most physicians doing prenatal (shared) care look after women until the third trimester. CONCLUSIONS: Family doctors are still providing a large proportion of maternity care in Canada. This contribution must be nurtured by the College through its Maternity and Newborn Care Committee and other contacts to encourage family doctors to continue offering this essential service to childbearing women in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".