Northern Ontario's Obstetrical Services in 2020: A developing rural maternity care desert
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Rural maternity care services matter. Obstetrical care in rural Canada has seen concerning trends of service closures and decreasing numbers of family physicians who predominantly provide this service. Such reductions have been shown to have a serious impact on maternal/foetal well-being. Methods: This study investigated the present state of obstetrical services in Northern Ontario, comparing results to those of the last similar survey in 1999. All 40 Northern Ontario communities with hospitals were surveyed, as were the 16 midwife practices in the region. Results: : Of the 35 rural and 5 urban hospitals surveyed, the number not offering obstetrical care has risen from 37.5% in 1999 to 60% in 2020, with all the closures having been rural sites. There have been no re-openings of obstetrics in hospitals that did not offer obstetrics in 1999. Women in the 9 communities that had offered maternity services in 1999, but no longer do in 2020, now travel an average of over 1.5 h to access these services. In those communities that continue obstetrics, but stopped offering caesarean sections, women now travel 2.5 h for this surgery. Although the total number of general physicians remains at the 1999 level, the number offering intrapartum care has dropped by 65% in urban centres and by 49% in rural ones still providing maternity care. Conclusions: Like much of the rural United States, rural Northern Ontario is well on its way to becoming a maternity care desert. As proven in Southern Australia, supportive government policies and programmes should be established and education reform enacted to reverse this concerning trend.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".