MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560518435 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v75.31470

Performance indicators for maternity care in a circumpolar context: a scoping review

2016· review· en· W2560518435 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca L. Rich, Thomsen D’Hont, Janice Linton, Kellie E. Murphy, Jérémy Veillard, Susan Chatwood

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of ManitobaInstitute for Circumpolar Health ResearchPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCircumpolar starCINAHLIndigenousContext (archaeology)ScopusHealth careGrey literaturePopulationGeographyMedicineGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)MEDLINEPsychological interventionNursingEnvironmental healthEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.153
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.153
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0370.048
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.392 · 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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207