MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134247001 · doi:10.1001/jama.288.11.1373

Effectiveness of Nurses as Providers of Birth Labor Support in North American Hospitals<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>

2002· article· en· W2134247001 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ellen Hodnett

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCoalition for Research in Women's Health
FundersNational Institute of Nursing Research
KeywordsMedicineChildbirthObstetricsRandomizationPregnancyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: North American cesarean delivery rates have risen dramatically since the 1960s, without concomitant improvements in perinatal or maternal health. A Cochrane Review concluded that continuous caregiver support during labor has many benefits, including reduced likelihood of cesarean delivery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of nurses as providers of labor support in North American hospitals. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with prognostic stratification by center and parity. Women were enrolled during a 2-year period (May 1999 to May 2001) and followed up until 6 to 8 postpartum weeks. SETTING: Thirteen US and Canadian hospitals with annual cesarean delivery rates of at least 15%. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6915 women who had a live singleton fetus or twins, were 34 weeks' gestation or more, and were in established labor at randomization. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive usual care (n = 3461) or continuous labor support by a specially trained nurse (n = 3454) during labor. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was cesarean delivery rate. Other outcomes included intrapartum events and indicators of maternal and neonatal morbidity, both immediately after birth and in the first 6 to 8 postpartum weeks. RESULTS: Data were received for all 6915 women and their infants (n = 6949). The rates of cesarean delivery were almost identical in the 2 groups (12.5% in the continuous labor support group and 12.6% in the usual care group; P =.44). There were no significant differences in other maternal or neonatal events during labor, delivery, or the hospital stay. There were no significant differences in women's perceived control during childbirth or in depression, measured at 6 to 8 postpartum weeks. All comparisons of women's likes and dislikes, and their future preference for amount of nursing support, favored the continuous labor support group. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitals characterized by high rates of routine intrapartum interventions, continuous labor support by nurses does not affect the likelihood of cesarean delivery or other medical or psychosocial outcomes of labor and birth.

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)0.009
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations159
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207