MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321503767 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064483

Pregnancy, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in women exposed to physician-related occupational hazards: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4321503767 on OpenAlexaff
Candace Marsters, Lenka Stafl, Sarah Bugden, Rita Gustainis, Victoria Nkunu, Renée Reimer, Sarah Fletcher, Stephanie Smith, Moss Bruton Joe, Christine Hyde, Erica Dance, Shannon M. Ruzycki

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLMiscarriageMEDLINEFamily medicineObservational studyPregnancyScopusData extractionOccupational medicineHealth careHazard ratioMedical emergencyPsychological interventionNursingOccupational exposurePathologyConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Evidence is needed to guide organisational decision making about workplace accommodations for pregnant physicians. Our objective was to characterise the strengths and limitations of current research examining the association between physician-related occupational hazards with pregnancy, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL/ EBSCO, SciVerse Scopus and Web of Science/Knowledge were searched from inception to 2 April 2020. A grey literature search was performed on 5 April 2020. The references of all included articles were hand searched for additional citations. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language citations that studied employed pregnant people and any 'physician-related occupational hazards', meaning any relevant physical, infectious, chemical or psychological hazard, were included. Outcomes included any pregnancy, obstetrical or neonatal complication. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Physician-related occupational hazards included physician work, healthcare work, long work hours, 'demanding' work, disordered sleep, night shifts and exposure to radiation, chemotherapy, anaesthetic gases or infectious disease. Data were extracted independently in duplicate and reconciled through discussion. RESULTS: Of the 316 included citations, 189 were original research studies. Most were retrospective, observational and included women in any occupation rather than healthcare workers. Methods for exposure and outcome ascertainment varied across studies and most studies had a high risk of bias in data ascertainment. Most exposures and outcomes were defined categorically and results from different studies could not be combined in a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in how these categories were defined. Overall, some data suggested that healthcare workers may have an increased risk of miscarriage compared with other employed women. Long work hours may be associated with miscarriage and preterm birth. CONCLUSIONS: There are important limitations in the current evidence examining physician-related occupational hazards and adverse pregnancy, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. It is not clear how the medical workplace should be accommodated to improve outcomes for pregnant physicians. High-quality studies are needed and likely feasible.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0170.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.308
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic DrugsFrench-language works237,207