Gastos com a assistência ao parto: comparação entre as coortes de nascimento de Pelotas dos anos de 2004 e 2015, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although most childbirth care in Brazil is financed by the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS), there are out-of-pocket expenditures (private personal costs) involved in births. This study aims to compare maternal out-of-pocket expenditures in births of children from the Pelotas Birth Cohorts of 2004 and 2015. The study drew on information collected right after birth and at three months of age. The target variables include sociodemographic and economic data, private health plan coverage, and expenditures related to the birth. Values from 2004 were adjusted to 2015 by the general price index. There was an increase in private health plan coverage from 33.4% (95%CI: 31.9-34.9) to 45.1% (95%IC: 43.6-46.7) in the target period, directly associated with the families' socioeconomic status (p < 0.001). There was an increase in mean expenditures on hospitalization for the birth, from BRL 60.38 (SD = 288.66) to BRL 171.15 (SD = 957.07), and in additional medical expenditures, from BRL 191.60 (SD = 612.86) to BRL 1,424.80 (SD = 4,459.16) among mothers admitted to hospital under their private health plans (and there was no significant difference in these expenditures for mothers that opted for direct payment). There was an important increase in expenditures for childbirth care, especially among mothers admitted to hospital under private health plans.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".