MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Feasibility of Establishing a Canadian Obstetric Survey System (CanOSS) for Severe Maternal Morbidity: Interim Results [ID: 1377349]

2023· article· en· W4377015183 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rohan D’Souza, Rizwana Ashraf, Isabelle Malhamé, Rebecca Seymour

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterimUnit (ring theory)Psychological interventionFamily medicineNursingData collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Obtaining granular data on events and circumstances leading to severe maternal morbidity (SMM) could complement large epidemiologic studies and enable targeted interventions to improve maternal health. This study aims to assess the feasibility of gathering such data from maternity units across Canada through a Canadian Obstetric Survey System (CanOSS). METHODS: The study is a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study, the first step of which is a nationwide survey of maternity unit leads. Semistructured qualitative interviews are being conducted with unit leads that expressed interest in response to the survey. Responses are reported using proportions and percentages. Interviews are being thematically analyzed. This study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB) #14002. RESULTS: As of October 18, 2022, we have identified 306 maternity units nationally, and sent 218 surveys, with 59 maternity units across 8 provinces completing. Among these, 34 (83%) report having a system in place for reviewing SMM, conducted on an as-needed basis in 61% of units, and most commonly involving a multidisciplinary panel of experts with representation from nursing (85%), maternity unit leadership (79%), and hospital management (74%). A written report is prepared following 76% of meetings. Findings are shared with health care professionals involved in the event and formulated into recommendations in 79% and 82% of units, respectively. Importantly, 78% of respondents would be willing to contribute anonymized data on SMM within a centralized reporting system. Interviews have taken place with 14 unit leads. Interviewed participants unanimously agree that an obstetric survey system is needed. Concerns raised include privacy, resources, funding, and having a clear definition of SMM. CONCLUSION: This feasibility study will facilitate future planning, clarify barriers to be addressed, and resource implications for gathering data on SMM at a national level, and lay the foundations for a future CanOSS.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.334
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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207