Evaluation of quality improvement for cesarean sections programmes through mixed methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rate of avoidable caesarean sections (CS) could be reduced through multifaceted strategies focusing on the involvement of health professionals and compliance with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Quality improvements for CS (QICS) programmes (QICS) based on this approach, have been implemented in Canada and Spain. OBJECTIVES: Their objectives are as follows: 1) Toto identify clusters in each setting with similar results in terms of cost-consequences, 2) Toto investigate whether demographic, clinical or context characteristics can distinguish these clusters, and 3) Toto explore the implementation of QICS in the 2 regions, in order to identify factors that have been facilitators in changing practices and reducing the use of obstetric intervention, as well as the challenges faced by hospitals in implementing the recommendations. METHODS: Descriptive study with a quantitative and qualitative approach. 1) Cluster analysis at patient level with data from 16 hospitals in Quebec (Canada) (n = 105,348) and 15 hospitals in Andalusia (Spain) (n = 64,760). The outcome measures are CS and costs. For the cost, we will consider the intervention, delivery and complications in mother and baby, from the hospital perspective. Cluster analysis will be used to identify participants with similar patterns of CS and costs based, and t tests will be used to evaluate if the clusters differed in terms of characteristics: Hospital level (academic status of hospital, level of care, supply and demand factors), patient level (mother age, parity, gestational age, previous CS, previous pathology, presentation of the baby, baby birth weight). 2) Analysis of in-depth interviews with obstetricians and midwives in hospitals where the QICS were implemented, to explore the differences in delivery-related practices, and the importance of the different constructs for positive or negative adherence to CPGs. Dimensions: political/management level, hospital level, health professionals, mothers and their birth partner. DISCUSSION: This work sets out a new approach for programme evaluation, using different techniques to make it possible to take into account the specific context where the programmes were implemented.
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 | 0.145 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".