MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2310084655 · doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.01.007

Is model of care associated with infant birth outcomes among vulnerable women? A scoping review of midwifery-led versus physician-led care

2016· review· en· W2310084655 on OpenAlexafffund
Daphne N. McRae, Nazeem Muhajarine, Kathrin Stoll, Maureen Mayhew, Saraswathi Vedam, Deborah Mpofu, Patricia A. Janssen

Bibliographic record

VenueSSM - Population Health · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health AuthorityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health
FundersChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsMedicineInfant mortalityObstetricsMaternity careNursingFamily medicineHealth careEnvironmental healthPopulationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This scoping review investigates if, over the last 25 years in high resource countries, midwives’ patients of low socioeconomic position (SEP) were at more or less risk of adverse infant birth outcomes compared to physicians’ patients. Reviewers identified 917 records in a search of 12 databases, grey literature, and citation lists. Thirty-one full documents were assessed and nine studies met inclusion criteria. Eight studies were assessed as moderate in quality; one study was given a weak rating. Of the moderate quality studies, the majority found no statistical difference in outcomes according to model of care for preterm birth, low or very low birth weight, or NICU admission. No study reported a statistically significant difference for small for gestational age birth ( 2 studies ), or mean or low Apgar score ( 4 studies ) . However, one study found a reduced risk of preterm birth (AOR=0.70, p <0.01), and heavier mean infant birth weight (3325 g vs. 3282 g, p <0.01) for midwifery patients. Another study reported lower risk of low (RR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.73) and very low birthweight (RR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.85) for midwifery care. And, a third study reported a decrease in stays (1–3 days) in NICU (Adjusted Risk Difference=−1.8, 95% CI: −3.9, 0.2) for midwifery patients, though no overall difference in NICU admission of any duration. Other studies reported significant differences favoring midwifery care for mean birth weight (3598 g vs. 3407.3 g, p <0.05; 3233 g vs. 3089 g, p <0.05; 2 studies ) and very low birth weight (OR=0.35, 95% CI:0.1, 0.9), for sub-groups within the larger study populations. This scoping review documented heterogeneity in study designs and analytical methods, inconsistent findings, moderate methodological quality, and lack of currency. There is a need for new studies to definitively establish if and how a midwifery-led model of care influences birth outcomes for women of low SEP.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSM - Population HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207