Differences in institutional cesarean delivery rates-the role of pain management.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of our study was to compare cesarean delivery rates for low-risk nulliparous women in a community hospital and a tertiary-level maternity hospital and to determine factors influencing those rates. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 857 women who did not have obstetric risk factors. The association between hospital and cesarean delivery rate was examined in a multivariate analysis using logistic regression. In a follow-up cohort study, we observed labor management for 24 couples in the community and 26 in the tertiary hospital. RESULTS: The odds of having a cesarean birth (age-adjusted) at the tertiary center were 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 2.1-5.4) compared with the community hospital. Maternal age, cervical dilatation on first examination, and use of epidural analgesia were the primary factors associated with the difference in cesarean delivery rates, with epidural analgesia having the largest effect. Labor support between the 2 hospitals appeared to be similar with the exception of increased use of ambulation in the community hospital and fewer numbers of caregivers for each woman in labor. Women in the tertiary center were more often offered epidural analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in use of epidural analgesia may contribute to differences in institutional rates of cesarean delivery. Use of epidural analgesia may be related to use of ambulation, consistency of caregiver during labor, availability of epidural, and suggestion for its use by caregivers.
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) | 0.000 | 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".