MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139269539 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(21)00061-9

Effect of a Birthing on Country service redesign on maternal and neonatal health outcomes for First Nations Australians: a prospective, non-randomised, interventional trial

2021· article· en· W3139269539 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sue Kildea, Yu Gao, Sophie Hickey, Carmel Nelson, Sue Kruske, Adrian Carson, Jody Currie, Maree Reynolds, Kay Wilson, Kristie Watego, Jo Costello, Yvette Roe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research CouncilQueensland GovernmentCharles Darwin UniversityUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsRedressMedicineGeneral partnershipAgency (philosophy)NursingFamily medicineHealth careProgram evaluationService (business)Economic growthPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is an urgency to redress unacceptable maternal and infant health outcomes for First Nations families in Australia. A multi-agency partnership between two Aboriginal Community-controlled health services and a tertiary hospital in urban Australia designed, implemented, and evaluated the new Birthing in Our Community (BiOC) service. In this study, we aimed to assess and report the clinical effectiveness of the BiOC service on key maternal and infant health outcomes compared with that of standard care. METHODS: Pregnant women attending the Mater Mothers Public Hospital (Brisbane, QLD, Australia) who were having a First Nations baby were invited to receive the BiOC service. In this prospective, non-randomised, interventional trial of the service, we specifically enrolled women who intended to birth at the study hospital, and had a referral from a family doctor or Aboriginal Medical Service. Participants were offered either standard care services or the BiOC service. Prespecified primary outcomes to test the effectiveness of the BiOC service versus standard care were the proportion of women attending five or more antenatal visits, smoking after 20 weeks of gestation, who had a preterm birth (<37 weeks), and who were exclusively breastfeeding at discharge from hospital. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance confounders and calculate treatment effect. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12618001365257. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2013, and June 30, 2019, 1867 First Nations babies were born at the Mater Mothers Public Hospital. After exclusions, 1422 women received either standard care (656 participants) or the BiOC service (766 participants) and were included in the analyses. Women receiving the BiOC service were more likely to attend five or more antenatal visits (adjusted odds ratio 1·54, 95% CI 1·13-2·09; p=0·0064), less likely to have an infant born preterm (0·62, 0·42-0·93; p=0·019), and more likely to exclusively breastfeed on discharge from hospital (1·34, 1·06-1·70; p=0·014). No difference was found between the two groups for smoking after 20 weeks of gestation, with both showing a reduction compared with smoking levels reported at their hospital booking visit. INTERPRETATION: This study has shown the clinical effectiveness of the BiOC service, which was co-designed by stakeholders and underpinned by Birthing on Country principles. The widespread scale-up of this new service should be prioritised. Dedicated funding, knowledge translation, and implementation science are needed to ensure all First Nations families can access Birthing on Country services that are adapted for their specific contexts. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations138
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207