Differences in obstetric care among nulliparous First Nations and non–First Nations women in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada's Aboriginal population faces significantly higher rates of stillbirth and neonatal and postnatal death than those seen in the general population. The objective of this study was to compare indicators of obstetric care quality and use of obstetric interventions between First Nations and non-First Nations mothers in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: We linked obstetrical medical records with the First Nations Client File for all nulliparous women who delivered single infants in British Columbia from 1999 to 2011. Using logistic regression models, we examined differences in the proportion of women who received services aligned with best practice guidelines, as well as the overall use of obstetric interventions among First Nations mothers compared with the general population, controlling for geographic barriers (distance to hospital) and other relevant confounders. RESULTS: During the study period, 215,993 single births occurred in nulliparous women in British Columbia, 9152 of which were to members of our First Nations cohort. First Nations mothers were less likely to have early ultrasonography (adjusted risk difference = 10.2 fewer women per 100 deliveries [95% confidence interval {CI} -11.3 to -9.3]), to have at least 4 antenatal care visits (3.6 fewer women per 100 deliveries [95% CI -4.6 to -2.6]), and to undergo labour induction after prolonged (> 24 hours) prelabour rupture of membranes (-5.9 [95% CI -11.8 to 0.1]) or at post-dates gestation (-10.6 [95% CI -13.8 to -7.5]). Obstetric interventions including epidural, labour induction, instrumental delivery and cesarean delivery were used less often in First Nations mothers. INTERPRETATION: We identified differences in the obstetric care received by First Nations mothers compared with the general population. Such differences warrant further investigation, given increases in perinatal mortality that are consistently shown and that may be a downstream consequence of differences in care.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".