MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 237: Do We Treat Women Differently? Health Care Providers’ Perspectives on Gender Differences in Post-arrest Care

2013· article· en· W41112962 on OpenAlexaffabout
Janet Parsons, Valeria E. Rac, Natalie A. Baker, Elizabeth Racz, Michelle Gaudio, Paul Dorian, Robert Fowler, Arthur S. Slutsky, Katie N. Dainty, Damon C. Scales, Arlene S. Bierman, Beth L. Abramson, Sheldon Cheskes, Sara Gray, Alex Kiss, Laurie J. Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute of Health EconomicsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth careNursingFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To explore the perspectives of health care providers (HCP) on previously observed gender-related differences in post-arrest care, and to identify potential barriers to care delivery amenable to modification that may minimize disparities in care. Methods: Qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews conducted with 27 HCPs at six hospitals in southern Ontario from July 2012 through March of 2013. A combination of purposeful and snowball sampling was used to recruit representative participants: gender, age, professional designation, and practice settings). Interviews were conducted by phone or in-person and lasted from 15-60 minutes. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, and coded inductively using a descriptive content analytic approach to identify common themes and patterns (constant comparison). Results: Most HCPs indicated that they did not feel that the care offered to female and male post-arrest patients was markedly different; rather each patient is treated as “a life to be saved” where treatment is by protocol and each arrest is context-dependent. In attempting to address potential differences in care, participants characterized gender as one of many contributing factors (clinical, social and individual circumstances), that are entangled with other social determinants of health (age, family structure, ethnicity). Factors operating at the individual-, institutional- and social structural levels may explain any observed differences. For example, once patients are transferred to the ICU for ongoing management, many HCPs felt that decision-making surrounding withdrawal of life support might differ based on gender, but intersects closely with other factors including family support, ethnicity and religion. Conclusion: HCPs do not perceive gender-based differential access to evidence-based resuscitation care is occurring. They do not believe differential access is contributing to observed differences in post-arrest outcomes between men and women. Rather, gender was portrayed as embedded within an array of social determinants of health as well as clinical and physiological factors that were difficult to separate. Future studies should focus on these other factors and explore how they relate to gender.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→