Is attending birth dying out? Trends in obstetric care provision among primary care physicians in British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in and sociodemographic predictors of the provision of obstetric care within the primary care context among physicians in British Columbia (BC). DESIGN: Population-based, longitudinal cohort study using administrative data. SETTING: British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: All primary care physicians practising in BC between 2005-2006 and 2011-2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fee-for-service payment records were used to identify the provision of prenatal and postnatal care and deliveries. The proportions of physicians who attended deliveries and who included any obstetric care provision in their practices were examined over time using longitudinal mixed-effects log-linear models. RESULTS: The proportion of physicians attending deliveries or providing any obstetric care declined significantly over the study period (deliveries: odds ratio [OR] of 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.95; obstetric care: OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.95), and obstetric care provision accounted for a smaller proportion of overall practice activity (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99). Female physicians had higher odds of including obstetric care in their practices (OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.27-1.69), and by 2011-2012 had significantly higher odds of attending deliveries (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.38). Older physicians and those located in metropolitan centres were less likely to provide obstetric care or attend deliveries. CONCLUSION: The provision of obstetric care by primary care physicians in BC declined over this period, suggesting the possibility of a growing access issue, particularly in rural and remote communities where family physicians are often the sole providers of obstetric 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".