MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083515984 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1407120

A Cluster-Randomized Trial to Reduce Cesarean Delivery Rates in Quebec

2015· article· en· W2083515984 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nils Chaillet, Alexandre Dumont, Michał Abrahamowicz, Jean‐Charles Pasquier, François Audibert, Patricia Monnier, Haim A. Abenhaim, Éric Dubé, Marylène Dugas, Rebecca Burne, William D. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsThe Quebec Population Health Research NetworkMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioCesarean deliveryCluster randomised controlled trialPregnancyRate ratioAuditCluster (spacecraft)ObstetricsIntervention (counseling)PediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Canada, cesarean delivery rates have increased substantially over the past decade. Effective, safe strategies are needed to reduce these rates. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized, controlled trial of a multifaceted 1.5-year intervention at 32 hospitals in Quebec. The intervention involved audits of indications for cesarean delivery, provision of feedback to health professionals, and implementation of best practices. The primary outcome was the cesarean delivery rate in the 1-year postintervention period. RESULTS: Among the 184,952 participants, 53,086 women delivered in the year before the intervention and 52,265 women delivered in the year following the intervention. There was a significant but small reduction in the rate of cesarean delivery from the preintervention period to the postintervention period in the intervention group as compared with the control group (change, 22.5% to 21.8% in the intervention group and 23.2% to 23.5% in the control group; odds ratio for incremental change over time, adjusted for hospital and patient characteristics, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.99; P=0.04; adjusted risk difference, -1.8%; 95% CI, -3.8 to -0.2). The cesarean delivery rate was significantly reduced among women with low-risk pregnancies (adjusted risk difference, -1.7%; 95% CI, -3.0 to -0.3; P=0.03) but not among those with high-risk pregnancies (P=0.35; P = 0.03 for interaction). The intervention group also had a reduction in major neonatal morbidity as compared with the control group (adjusted risk difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -1.3 to -0.1; P=0.03) and a smaller increase in minor neonatal morbidity (adjusted risk difference, -1.7%; 95% CI, -2.6 to -0.9; P<0.001). Changes in minor and major maternal morbidity did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Audits of indications for cesarean delivery, feedback for health professionals, and implementation of best practices, as compared with usual care, resulted in a significant but small reduction in the rate of cesarean delivery, without adverse effects on maternal or neonatal outcomes. The benefit was driven by the effect of the intervention in low-risk pregnancies. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; QUARISMA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN95086407.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations153
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207