In-Home Nursing Care for Women With High-Risk Pregnancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objective To evaluate a program that provides in-home care to women with pregnancies threatened by preterm delivery (including preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of membranes, and multiple gestation) and women with pregnancy-related hypertension. Methods Data from hospital discharge summaries were used to compare birth outcomes and cost of care for women in the in-home program and a cohort of women who received in-hospital antenatal care before the new program. Birth outcomes included data for mothers and infants. The sample included 437 women with threatened preterm delivery (n = 228 in-home, n = 209 in-hospital) and 308 with hypertension (n = 155 in-home, n = 153 in-hospital). The cost per woman included all costs of services for mothers and infants. Results Women at risk of preterm delivery who received in-home care were half as likely to have their infants in the neonatal intensive care unit more than 48 hours (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.36, 0.78). On average, their infants weighed more (2732 ± 716 g versus 2330 ± 749 g, P < .001) and were 2 weeks older at birth (36.1 ± 3.1 weeks versus 34.0 ± 4.0 weeks, P < .001). There was a wide range in the total cost per woman and no significant difference between cohorts. For women with hypertension, there were no significant differences between in-home and in-hospital cohorts in birth outcomes or costs of care per woman. Conclusion The program with current admission criteria, staffing, and guidelines for antenatal hospital admission provides safe care to women at similar cost to that of hospitalization. In-home nursing for women with high-risk pregnancies is safe but offers no cost saving over antenatal hospitalization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".