MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attitudes of the New Generation of Canadian Obstetricians: How Do They Differ from Their Predecessors?

2011· letter· en· W2028980037 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpisiotomyObstetricsChildbirthCaesarean sectionMaternity carePregnancyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Attitudes drive practice, perhaps more than evidence. The objective of this study was to determine if the new generation of Canadian obstetricians has attitudes differing from those of their predecessors. METHODS: Employing a cross-sectional, Internet, and paper-based survey, we conducted an in-depth study of obstetricians responding to the Canadian National Maternity Care Attitudes Survey. RESULTS: Of the 800 Canadian obstetricians providing intrapartum care, 549 (68.6%) responded. Participants were stratified by age less than or equal to 40 years compared with those over 40 years; 81 percent of those 40 years or younger were women versus 40 percent over 40 years of age. Younger obstetricians were significantly more likely to favor use of routine epidural analgesia and believed that it did not interfere with labor or lead to instrumentation; were more concerned and feared the perineal and pelvic floor consequences of vaginal birth compared with cesarean section; and were significantly less supportive of vaginal birth after prior cesarean section, home birth, birth plans, routine episiotomy, and routine electronic fetal monitoring as providing maternal or fetal benefits. They were less positive than the older generation about a range of approaches to reducing the cesarean section rate, the importance of maternal choice and role in their own birth, and peer review, and they were more likely to believe that women having a cesarean section were not missing an important experience. No significant generational differences were found for ambivalent attitudes to vaginal breech birth. CONCLUSIONS: Younger obstetricians were more evidence-based for some issues and less for others. In general younger obstetricians were more supportive of the role of birth technology in normal birth, including routine epidural analgesia, and they were less appreciative of the role of women in their own birth. They saw cesarean section as a solution to many perceived labor and birth problems. Results suggest a need to examine how obstetricians acquire their favorable attitudes to birth technology in normal birth.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.189 · 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