MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116240895 · doi:10.1111/jmwh.13164

Client Experience with the Ontario Birth Center Demonstration Project

2020· article· en· W3116240895 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jessica Reszel, Deborah Weiss, Elizabeth Darling, Dana Sidney, Vicki Van Wagner, Bobbi Soderstrom, Judy L. Rogers, Vivian Holmberg, Wendy E. Peterson, Bushra Khan, Mark Walker, Ann E. Sprague

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Midwifery & Women s Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsOntario Medical AssociationOttawa HospitalAssociation of Ontario MidwivesMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioToronto Metropolitan UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsHome birthMedicinePlace of birthBirth rateCenter (category theory)Live birthDemographyObstetricsFamily medicinePregnancyChildbirthPopulationFertilitySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, 2 new freestanding midwifery-led birth centers opened in Ontario, Canada. As one part of a larger mixed-methods evaluation of the first year of operations of the centers, our primary objective was to compare the experiences of women receiving midwifery care who intended to give birth at the new birth centers with those intending to give birth at home or in hospital. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of women cared for by midwives with admitting privileges at one of the 2 birth centers. Consenting women received the survey 3 to 6 weeks after their due date. We stratified the analysis by intended place of birth at the beginning of labor, regardless of where the actual birth occurred. One composite indicator was created (Composite Satisfaction Score, out of 20), and statistical significance (P < .05) was assessed using one-way analysis of variance. Responses to the open-ended questions were reviewed and grouped into broader categories. RESULTS: In total, 382 women completed the survey (response rate 54.6%). Half intended to give birth at a birth center (n = 191). There was a significant difference on the Composite Satisfaction Scores between the birth center (19.4), home (19.5), and hospital (18.9) groups (P < .001). Among women who intended to give birth in a birth center, scores were higher in the women admitted to the birth center compared with those who were not (P = .037). Overall, women giving birth at a birth center were satisfied with the learners present at their birth, the accessibility of the centers, and the physical amenities, and they had suggestions for minor improvements. DISCUSSION: We found positive experiences and high satisfaction among women receiving midwifery care, regardless of intended place of birth. Women admitted to the birth centers had positive experiences with these new centers; however, future research should be planned to reassess and further understand women's experiences.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Midwifery & Women s HealthSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207