MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Do Physicians and Midwives Manage the Third Stage of Labor?

2008· article· en· W2151158259 on OpenAlexaff
Weiping M. Tan, Michael Klein, Lee Saxell, Sahba Eftekhary Shirkoohy, Getnet Asrat

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaCoquitlam CollegeUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineThird stageMaternity careFamily medicineNursingNurse-MidwivesObstetricsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current practice guidelines recommend active management of the third stage of labor. We compared practices of three maternity care provider disciplines in management of third-stage labor and the justifications for their approach. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional survey of maternity practitioners in usual practice settings in British Columbia. All 199 obstetricians, all 82 midwives, and a random sample of family physicians practicing intrapartum maternity care (one-third, or 346) were surveyed The three main outcome measures by discipline were the method preferred in managing third-stage labor, the reasons given for the chosen method, and views on the appropriateness of the current third-stage labor guideline. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 57.8 percent. Response rates indicating that the participants were "aware of guideline" were the following: obstetricians, 85.3 percent; family physicians, 53.7 percent; and midwives, 97.8 percent. Response rates indicating that the participants "agreed with guideline" were the following: obstetricians, 95.2 percent; family physicians, 97.6 percent; and midwives, 51.2 percent. Response rates indicating that "oxytocin should be given with anterior shoulder" were the following: obstetricians, 71.1 percent; family physicians, 68.3 percent; and midwives, 26.7 percent. Response rates indicating that "routine active management of third stage of labor should be the norm" were the following: obstetricians, 79.2 percent; family physicians, 60.2 percent; and midwives, 17 percent. All results were statistically significant (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A major difference was found between physicians and midwives in the management of third-stage labor. Physicians routinely implemented active management of the third stage of labor; midwives preferred expectant approaches, principally based on women's preference. Provincial data did not show differences in postpartum hemorrhage or transfusion rates by practitioner type.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations37
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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