MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020248971 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20190154

Emergency department use by pregnant women in Ontario: a retrospective population-based cohort study

2020· article· en· W3020248971 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Catherine Varner, Alison L. Park, Darby Little, Joel G. Ray

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentPregnancyPoisson regressionMiscarriageRetrospective cohort studyAbortionPopulationObstetricsCohort studyPediatricsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Peripregnancy emergency department use may be common, but data specific to health care systems like that in Canada are lacking. As prior research was limited to livebirths, omitting pregnancies ending in miscarriage or induced abortion, the current study quantified and characterized emergency department use among women in Ontario with a recognized pregnancy. METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study included all recognized pregnancies among Ontario residents aged 10-55 years with an estimated date of conception between Apr. 1, 2002, and Mar. 31, 2017. We defined peripregnancy emergency department use as any emergency department visit during pregnancy or within 42 days after pregnancy. We used modified Poisson regression with a robust error variance to generate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the outcome of any peripregnancy emergency department use in association with maternal age, parity, residential income quintile, location of residence, immigrant status, antenatal care provider and number of comorbidities within 120 days before the clinical start of the pregnancy (expressed as total number of Aggregated Diagnosis Groups [ADGs] obtained with the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group System). All RRs, except for number of comorbidities, were further adjusted for number of ADGs. RESULTS: Peripregnancy emergency department use occurred in 1 075 991 (39.4%) of 2 728 236 recognized pregnancies, including 35.8% of livebirths, 47.3% of stillbirths, 73.7% of miscarriages and 84.8% of threatened abortions. A peripregnancy emergency department visit was more likely among women who were less than 25 years of age (adjusted RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.16-1.17), were nulliparous (adjusted RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.13-1.13), resided in the lowest income quintile area (adjusted RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.15-1.16) or in a rural area (adjusted RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.50-1.51), were Canadian-born (adjusted RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.22-1.23), were not seen by an obstetrician (adjusted RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.54-1.80) or had a greater number of ADGs. Emergency department use peaked in the first trimester and in the first week postpartum. Compared to women residing in urban areas, those residing in rural areas had an odds ratio (OR) of 3.44 (95% CI 3.39-3.49) for 3 or more emergency department visits. Women with 3-4 (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.97-2.01), 5-6 (OR 3.55, 95% CI 3.49-3.61), or 7 or more (OR 7.59, 95% CI 7.39-7.78) prepregnancy comorbidities were more likely to have 3 or more peripregnancy emergency department visits than were those with 2 or fewer comorbidities. INTERPRETATION: Peripregnancy emergency department use occurred in nearly 40% of pregnancies, notably in the first trimester and early in the postpartum period. Efforts are needed to streamline rapid access to ambulatory obstetric care during these peak periods, when women are susceptible to miscarriage or a complication after a livebirth.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations50
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207