Results of implementation of a hospital‐based strategy to reduce cesarean delivery among low‐risk women in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cesarean delivery (CD) rate among low-risk pregnancies before and after implementation of a hospital-based program in Canada. METHODS: A prospective before-and-after study was conducted to assess the effects of the CARE (CAesarean REduction) strategy, which was developed and implemented at Markham Stouffville Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada, in 2010 to reduce CD among low-risk women. Hospital records were reviewed to identify changes in the proportions of CD performed during 12 months (April 2009-March 2010) before implementation of the CARE strategy versus 12 months after implementation (April 2012-March 2013) at Markham Stouffville Hospital and 36 hospitals of the same level in the same province. RESULTS: At the intervention hospital, 30.3% (964/3181) of women underwent CD in 2009-2010, compared with 26.4% (803/3045) in 2012-2013 (difference -3.9%, P<0.001). By contrast, no significant difference was recorded in control hospitals (28.1% [23 694/84 361] vs 28.2% [23 683/83 895]; difference 0.1%, P=0.5157). CONCLUSION: Implementation of the CARE strategy reduced rates of CD among the target population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".