How satisfied are mothers with 1-day hospital stays for routine delivery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Payers and health plans are encouraging shorter hospital stays after routine vaginal delivery. OBJECTIVE: To assess the satisfaction of mothers who had 1-day or 2-day stays after routine delivery. DESIGN: We mailed questionnaires to mothers 7 to 9 months after delivery. The self-administered survey contained questions about the mothers' satisfaction with the care they received, clinical complications, and the mothers' preparedness after discharge. SETTING: A mixed-staff, network-model managed care plan in Minnesota that encourages but does not require 1-day hospital stays after routine delivery. PARTICIPANTS: All plan members who delivered a baby vaginally in the first quarter of 1995 (n = 1009). RESULTS: 56% of the mothers responded to the survey. Of these, 202 had 1-day stays and 292 had 2-day stays. Mothers with 1-day stays were more likely than mothers with 2-day stays to report that their length of stay was "too short" (75% vs. 37%; P < 0.001), and 81% of mothers with 1-day stays would want to stay longer if they had another child. The frequency of self-reported maternal or infant complications did not differ substantially between the two groups. More mothers with 1-day stays than mothers with 2-day stays received home health care visits (44% vs. 10%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although length of stay does not seem to be related to clinical outcomes after vaginal delivery, mothers with 1-day stays are less satisfied with their length of stay.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".