Epidural Analgesia Use as a Marker for Physician Approach to Birth: Implications for Maternal and Newborn Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the association between caregiver belief systems and practice patterns is an emerging area of research. We hypothesized an association between a maternity caregiver's belief system and his or her behavior. The study objective was to determine if a family physician's overall approach to maternity care, as measured by average use of epidural analgesia, was associated with maternal and fetal outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted of the births of three cohorts of 1992 nulliparous, low-risk women attended by 96 family physicians within an 18-month period in the department of family practice at the largest maternity hospital in Canada. Cohorts were based on the physicians' mean use of epidural analgesia for the women. Family physicians attending fewer than 5 births were excluded. The main outcome measures, by physician epidural utilization cohort, were maternal/newborn morbidity, procedure rates, consultation rates, and length of stay. RESULTS: Family physicians were separated into cohorts based on their mean use of epidural analgesia at rates of: low, 0-30 percent (15 physicians, 263 births); medium, 31-50 percent (55 physicians, 1323 births); and high, 51-100 percent (26 physicians, 406 births). After adjustment for maternal age and race, patients of low versus high epidural users were admitted at a later state of cervical dilation (mean 4.0 vs 3.1 cm), received less electronic fetal monitoring (76.4 vs 87.2%) and oxytocin augmentation (12.2 vs 29.8%), sustained fewer malpositions (occiput posterior or transverse) (23.2 vs 34.2%), had fewer cesarean sections (14.0 vs 24.4%), less obstetric consultation (47.9 vs 63.8%), and fewer newborn special care admissions (7.2 vs 12.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, high use of epidural analgesia is a marker for a style of practice characterized by malpositions leading to dysfunctional labors and higher intervention rates leading, in turn, to excess maternal/newborn morbidity.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".