Geospatial analysis of cesarean section in Iran (2016–2020): exploring clustered patterns and measuring spatial interactions of available health services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lives of babies and mothers are at risk due to the uneven distribution of healthcare facilities required for emergency cesarean sections (CS). However, CS without medical indications might cause complications for mothers and babies, which is a global health problem. Identifying spatiotemporal variations of CS rates in each geographical area could provide helpful information to understand the status of using CS services. METHODS: This cross-sectional study explored spatiotemporal patterns of CS in northeast Iran from 2016 to 2020. Space-time scan statistics and spatial interaction analysis were conducted using geographical information systems to visualize and explore patterns of CS services. RESULTS: The temporal analysis identified 2017 and 2018 as the statistically significant high clustered times in terms of CS rate. Five purely spatial clusters were identified that were distributed heterogeneously in the study region and included 14 counties. The spatiotemporal analysis identified four clusters that included 13 counties as high-rate areas in different periods. According to spatial interaction analysis, there was a solid spatial concentration of hospital facilities in the political center of the study area. Moreover, a high degree of inequity was observed in spatial accessibility to CS hospitals in the study area. CONCLUSIONS: CS Spatiotemporal clusters in the study area reveal that CS use in different counties among women of childbearing age is significantly different in terms of location and time. This difference might be studied in future research to identify any overutilization of CS or lack of appropriate CS in clustered counties, as both put women at risk. Hospital capacity and distance from population centers to hospitals might play an essential role in CS rate variations and spatial interactions among people and CS facilities. As a result, some healthcare strategies, e.g., building new hospitals and empowering the existing local hospitals to perform CS in areas out of service, might be developed to decline spatial inequity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".