Performance indicators for maternity care in a circumpolar context: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In circumpolar regions, harsh climates and scattered populations have prompted the centralization of care and reduction of local maternity services. The resulting practice of routine evacuation for birth from smaller towns to larger urban centres points to a potential conflict between the necessity to ensure patient safety and the importance of delivering services that are responsive to the health needs and values of populations served. OBJECTIVE: To identify recommended performance/quality indicators for use in circumpolar maternity care systems. METHODS: We searched Scopus, Ebscohost databases (including Academic Search Complete and CINAHL), the Global Health Database, High North Research Documents, and online grey literature. Articles were included if they focused on maternal health indicators in the population of interest (Indigenous women, women receiving care in circumpolar or remote regions). Articles were excluded if they were not related to pregnancy, birth or the immediate post-partum or neonatal periods. Two reviewers independently reviewed articles for inclusion and extracted relevant data. RESULTS: Twenty-six documents were included. Twelve were government documents, seven were review articles or indicator compilations, four were indicator sets recommended by academics or non-governmental organizations and three were research papers. We extracted and categorized 81 unique health indicators. The majority of indicators reflected health systems processes and outcomes during the antenatal and intra-partum periods. Only two governmental indicator sets explicitly considered the needs of Indigenous peoples. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that, although most circumpolar health systems engage in performance reporting for maternity care, efforts to capture local priorities and values are limited in most regions. Future work in this area should involve northern stakeholders in the process of indicator selection and development.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".