The outcomes of perinatal surgical services in rural British Columbia: a population-based study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A substantial number of small surgical services in rural Canada have been discontinued in the past 15 years because of difficulties recruiting and retaining practitioners, health care restructuring and a lack of a coherent evidence base regarding the safety of small services. The objective of this study was to examine the safety of small perinatal surgical services. METHODS: We accessed perinatal data for singleton births that occurred in British Columbia between Apr. 1, 2000, and Mar. 31, 2007. We defined hospital service levels, population catchment areas surrounding each hospital and the postal codes linked to those catchment areas. Births were linked with specific catchment areas and amalgamated by service level. We made comparisons among service strata populations and adjusted for potentially confounding characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 87 294 births occurred during the study period. The births were distributed across 6 strata of services, which ranged from no local maternity services to services supported by obstetricians. Fifteen catchment areas were served by general practitioners with enhanced surgical skills (GPESSs), and 9174 births were included from this obstetric service level. Outcomes for surgical services provided by GPs compared favourably to those provided by obstetricians. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that small surgical services supported by GPESSs are a safe health services model to meet the needs of rural women and families.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".