MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268289131 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20140110

Rates of prenatal screening across health care regions in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study

2015· article· en· W2268289131 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robin Z. Hayeems, Michael A. Campitelli, Xinxin Ma, Tianhua Huang, Matthew C. Walker, Astrid Guttmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaOntario Stroke NetworkNorth York General HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyConfidence intervalPrenatal careObstetricsPopulationPrenatal screeningCohortCohort studyPregnancyRate ratioDemographyPediatricsPrenatal diagnosisEnvironmental healthFetusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is recommended that all pregnant women be offered screening for Down syndrome and open neural tube defects, but emerging prenatal tests that are not publicly insured may compromise access. We evaluated screening rates for publicly insured screening tests across health care regions in the province of Ontario and determined whether maternal, provider or regional characteristics are associated with screening uptake. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study involving pregnant women in Ontario who were at or beyond 16 weeks' gestation in 2007-2009. We ascertained prenatal screening rates using linked health administrative and prenatal screening datasets. We examined maternal, provider and regional characteristics associated with screening uptake. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated. RESULTS: Of the 264 737 women included in the study, 62.2% received prenatal screening; uptake varied considerably by region (range 27.8%-80.3%). A greater proportion of women initiated screening in the first rather than the second trimester (50.0% v. 12.2%). Factors associated with lower screening rates included living in a rural area versus an urban area (adjusted rate ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.66), receiving first-trimester care from a family physician or midwife versus an obstetrician (adjusted rate ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.90-0.92, and 0.40, 95% CI 0.38-0.43, respectively) and being in a lower income quintile (adjusted RR for lowest v. highest 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.96). Being an immigrant or a refugee was associated with higher screening rates. INTERPRETATION: There were significant maternal, provider and regional differences in the uptake of prenatal screening across the province. With discrepancies expected to increase with the emergence of noninvasive prenatal tests paid for out of pocket by many women, policy efforts to reduce barriers to prenatal screening and optimize its availability are warranted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations41
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207