Socioeconomic status and perinatal outcomes in a setting with universal access to essential health care services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The health care system in Canada provides essential health services to all women irrespective of socioeconomic status. Our objective was to determine whether perinatal and infant outcomes varied by family income and other socioeconomic factors in this setting. METHODS: We included all 92,914 women who delivered in Nova Scotia between 1988 and 1995 following a singleton pregnancy. Family income was obtained for 76,440 of these women through a confidential link to income tax records and was divided into 5 groups. Outcomes studied included pregnancy complications, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age live birth, perinatal death, serious neonatal morbidity, postneonatal death and infant death. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Compared with women in the highest family income group, those in the lowest income group had significantly higher rates of gestational diabetes (crude rate ratio [RR] 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-1.73), preterm birth (crude RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.35), small-for-gestational-age live birth (crude RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.66-1.97) and postneonatal death (crude RR 5.54, 95% CI 2.21-13.9). The opposite was true for rates of perinatal death (crude RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.96), and there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the composite of perinatal death or serious neonatal morbidity (crude RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.24). Adjustment for behavioural and lifestyle factors accentuated or attenuated socioeconomic differences. INTERPRETATION: Lower family income is associated with increased rates of gestational diabetes, small-for-gestational-age live birth and postneonatal death despite health care services being widely available at no out-of-pocket expense.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".