MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200221995 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260962

Mothers of children with major congenital anomalies have increased health care utilization over a 20-year post-birth time horizon

2021· article· en· W4200221995 on OpenAlexaff
Nirav R. Shah, Kyung Mi Kim, Venus Wong, Eyal Cohen, Sarah Rosenbaum, Eli M. Cahan, Arnold Milstein, Henrik Toft Sørensen, Erzsébet Horváth–Puhó

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHorizonPediatricsMEDLINEDemographyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This population-based, matched cohort study aimed to evaluate utilization of health care services by mothers of children with major congenital anomalies (MCAs), compared to mothers of children without MCAs over a 20-year post-birth time horizon in Denmark. METHODS: Our analytic sample included mothers who gave birth to an infant with a MCA (n = 23,927) and a cohort of mothers matched to them by maternal age, parity and infant's year of birth (n = 239,076). Primary outcomes were period prevalence and mothers' quantity of health care utilization (primary, inpatient, outpatient, surgical, and psychiatric services) stratified by their child's age (i.e., ages 0-6 = before school, ages 7-13 = pre-school + primary education, and ages 14-18 = secondary education or higher). The secondary outcome measure was length of hospital stays. Outcome measures were adjusted for maternal age at delivery, parity, marital status, income quartile, level of education in the year prior to the index birth, previous spontaneous abortions, maternal pregnancy complications, maternal diabetes, hypertension, alcohol-related diseases, and maternal smoking. RESULTS: In both cohorts the majority of mothers were between 26 and 35 years of age, married, and employed, and 47% were primiparous. Mothers of infants with anomalies had greater utilization of outpatient, inpatient, surgical, and psychiatric services, compared with mothers in the matched cohort. Inpatient service utilization was greater in the exposed cohort up to 13 years after a child's birth, with the highest risk in the first six years after birth [adjusted risk ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12-1.14], with a decrease over time. Regarding the quantity of health care utilization, the greatest difference between the two groups was in inpatient service utilization, with a 39% increased rate in the exposed cohort during the first six years after birth (adjusted rate ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.37-1.42). During the first 6 years after birth, mothers of children with anomalies stayed a median of 6 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-13) in hospital overall, while the comparison cohort stayed a median of 4 days (IQR, 2-7) in hospital overall. Rates of utilization of outpatient clinics (adjusted rate ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.29-1.42), as well as inpatient (adjusted rate ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.68-1.87), and surgical services (adjusted rate ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.26-1.41) was higher in mothers of children with multiple-organ MCAs during 0 to 6 years after birth. Among mothers at the lowest income levels, utilization of psychiatric clinic services increased to 59% and when their child was 7 to 13 years of age (adjusted rate ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.24-2.03). CONCLUSION: Mothers of infants with a major congenital anomaly had greater health care utilization across services. Health care utilization decreased over time or remained stable for outpatient, inpatient, and surgical care services, whereas psychiatric utilization increased for up to 13 years after an affected child's birth. Healthcare utilization was significantly elevated among mothers of children with multiple MCAs and among those at the lowest income levels.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207