The effect of income pooling within a call group on rates of obstetric intervention.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On July 1, 1997, the call group at a tertiary referral hospital in Ottawa changed its remuneration. The authors tested the hypothesis that change in an obstetric call group's remuneration from individual fee-for-service billing to equal sharing of the pooled group income would result in reduced rates of obstetric intervention. METHODS: Intervention rates were compared for the 12 months before (1678 births) and the 12 months after (1934 births) the change. Data were collected on onset of labour, indication for induction of labour, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome. Statistical analysis was performed with Wilcoxon's signed-rank test. RESULTS: The mean rate of elective induction of labour was 38.6% in the year before the change and 33.3% in the year after the change (p = 0.01). There were small but statistically significant increases in the mean duration of labour and mean length of the second stage (p = 0.03). INTERPRETATION: Billing policy may affect clinical decisions. Our findings add weight to the literature showing increased intervention rates with fee-for-service remuneration.
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 | 0.011 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".