Clinical outcomes of one-to-one midwifery practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One-to-one midwifery was established in 1993 to put into practice the principles of Changing Childbirth. This second cohort study was undertaken to assess differences between one-to-one and standard care and to assess whether or not differences had persisted since an early study. A random sample of all women receiving standard care (postal districts W4 and W6) and of all women receiving one-to-one care (postal districts W3 and W12) who were expecting to give birth in the same NHS Trust between 15May 1997 and 14May 1998 were invited to enter the study of women's responses to care, the notes of all women were audited. Clinical endpoints were specified in advance, these were: caesarean and assisted delivery rates, epidural rates in those not having elective caesarean section, rates of intact perineum in those not having elective caesarean section, and labour duration. Satisfaction with care was recorded through the postal questionnaires. These endpoints were analysed using linear and logistic regression adjusting for prespecified confounders. There was a lower rate of all clinical interventions associated with one-to-one care and rates of satisfaction were higher. Differences were increased from the first cohort study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".