Single‐room maternity care: Systematic review and narrative synthesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To describe the single-room maternity care model and evaluate its influence on patient, provider and system outcomes. Design: Mixed-method systematic review and narrative synthesis. Methods: We conducted searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the grey literature from January 1985-August 2018, yielding 151 records. Pairs of reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria using a standardized screening tool to both titles/abstracts and full texts. Overall, 13 studies were retained. Results: Most studies of single-room care were from the United States and Canada, and assessed costs, patient satisfaction and/or provider satisfaction. Studies used cross-sectional and/or pre-post comparative, retrospective descriptive and qualitative designs. Methodological quality of quantitative studies was generally weak, and few studies conducted inferential statistics. Maternal satisfaction with the single-room maternity model was positive across the studies; however, healthcare provider satisfaction was mixed.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it