Water immersion during labor and birth: is there an extra cost for hospitals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Water immersion during labor and birth is growing in popularity, and many hospitals are now considering offering this service to laboring women. Some advantages of water immersion are demonstrated, but others remain uncertain, and particularly, few studies have examined the financial impact of such a device on hospitals. This study simulated what could be the extra cost of water immersion for hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical outcomes were drawn from the results of systematic reviews already published, and cost units were those used in the Quebec health network. A decision tree was used with microsimulations of representative laboring women. Sensitivity analyses were performed as regards analgesic use and labor duration. RESULTS: Microsimulations indicated an extra cost between $166.41 and $274.76 (2014 Canadian dollars) for each laboring woman as regards the scenario considered. The average extra cost was $221.12 (95% confidence interval, 219.97-222.28). CONCLUSION: While water immersion allows better clinical outcomes, implementation and other costs are higher than the savings generated, which leads to a small extra cost to allow women to potentially have more relaxation and less pain.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".