Attitudes of the New Generation of Canadian Obstetricians: How Do They Differ from Their Predecessors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".