Prenatal care among mothers involved with child protection services in Manitoba: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prenatal care is one of the most widely used preventive health services; however, use varies substantially. Our objective was to examine prenatal care among women with a history of having a child placed in out-of-home care, and whether their care differed from care among women who did not. METHODS: We used linkable administrative data to create a population-based cohort of women whose first 2 children were born in Manitoba, Canada, between Apr. 1, 1998, and Mar. 1, 2015. We measured the level of prenatal care using the Revised Graduated Prenatal Care Utilization Index, which categorizes care into 5 groups: intensive, adequate, intermediate, inadequate and no care. We compared level of prenatal care for women whose first child was placed in care with level of prenatal care for women who had no contact with care services, using 2 multinomial logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: In a cohort of 52 438 mothers, 1284 (2.4%) had their first child placed in out-of-home care before conception of their second child. Mothers whose first child was placed in care had much higher rates of inadequate prenatal care during the pregnancy with their second child than mothers whose first child was not placed in care (33.0% v. 13.4%). The odds of having inadequate rather than adequate prenatal care were more than 4 times higher (OR 4.29, 95% CI 3.68 to 5.01) for women who had their first child placed in care than for women who did not have their first child placed in care. INTERPRETATION: Mothers with a history of having a child taken into care by the child protection services system are at higher risk of having inadequate or no prenatal care in a subsequent pregnancy compared with mothers with no history of involvement with child protection services.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".