Maternity Outcomes in Manitoba Women: A Comparison between Midwifery‐led Care and Physician‐led Care at Birth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Registered midwives, obstetricians/gynecologists, and general or family practice physicians (GPs) provide maternity care across Canada. Few North American studies have assessed whether maternity outcomes differ across these three groups. This study compared maternal and neonatal outcomes of low-risk pregnant women whose birth was attended by registered midwives, obstetricians/gynecologists, and family practice physicians in Winnipeg, Manitoba from 2001/02 to 2012/13. METHODS: Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to examine differences in types of intervention, mode of delivery, and outcomes by provider type among low-risk women. Logistic regression models controlled for socio-demographic and birth-related covariates. RESULTS: Low-risk births comprised 83,774 (48.7%) of total births (n = 171,910). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR), (95% confidence interval) for midwife vs OB/GYN showed women who had a midwife attend the birth had reduced odds of having an episiotomy 0.47 (0.40-0.54), epidural 0.25 (0.23-0.27), and cesarean delivery 0.13 (0.10-0.16) and their infants had less Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admissions 0.28 (0.18-0.43). The aOR for GP versus OB/GYN showed women who had a GP had reduced odds of having an epidural/spinal 0.83 (0.79-0.88) and cesarean delivery 0.44 (0.40-0.48). CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of Manitoba maternity services can be improved with increased use of integrated midwifery services. Future research should examine how midwifery and physician-led models of care differ, and the influence of these differences on birth outcomes and cost-effectiveness to the health care system. Improvement of data tracking systems is also needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".