Early Labor Assessment and Support at Home Versus Telephone Triage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of cesarean delivery among women who were triaged by obstetric nurses, either by telephone or by means of home visits. METHODS: Healthy, nulliparous women in labor at term with uncomplicated pregnancies residing in the City of Vancouver, British Columbia, and suburbs between November 2001 and October 2004 were randomized when they sought advice about when to come to hospital. Women randomized to telephone triage (n=731) were provided with advice by telephone. Women randomized to a home visit (n=728) were triaged after a "hands-on" assessment in their homes. RESULTS: The relative risk (RR) for cesarean delivery among home-triaged women compared with those receiving only telephone support was 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.32). The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a RR less than 0.78 or greater than 1.27 for cesarean delivery. Significantly fewer women in the home visit group were admitted to hospital with cervical dilatation at 3 cm or less (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.94). Significantly more women in the home visit group managed their labor without a visit to hospital for assessment (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.23-1.92). There were no statistically significant differences in use of narcotic analgesia, epidural analgesia, and augmentation of labor. Adverse neonatal outcomes were rare and did not differ between study groups. CONCLUSION: Early labor assessment and support at home versus support by telephone reduces the number of visits to hospital in latent phase labor but does not impact cesarean delivery rates among healthy nulliparous women. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn, MCT-44153 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".