MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385519654 · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000005293

Delivery Strategies for Postpartum Care

2023· review· en· W4385519654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian J. Saldanha, Gaelen P. Adam, Ghid Kanaan, Michael L. Zahradnik, Dale W. Steele, Kenneth K. Chen, Alex Peahl, Valery A. Danilack-Fekete, Alison M. Stuebe, Ethan M. Balk

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingCINAHLHealth careRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPostpartum depressionAffect (linguistics)Family medicinePostpartum periodBreast feedingNursingPregnancyPediatricsPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effects of postpartum health care-delivery strategies on health care utilization and maternal outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies in the United States or Canada from inception to November 16, 2022. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We used duplicate screening for studies comparing health care-delivery strategies for routine postpartum care on health care utilization and maternal outcomes. We selected health care utilization, clinical, and harm outcomes prioritized by stakeholder panels. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We found 64 eligible studies (50 randomized controlled trials, 14 nonrandomized comparative studies; N=543,480). For general postpartum care, care location (clinic, at home, by telephone) did not affect depression or anxiety symptoms (low strength of evidence), and care integration (by multiple types of health care professionals) did not affect depression symptoms or substance use (low strength of evidence). Providing contraceptive care earlier (compared with later) was associated with greater implant use at 6 months (summary effect size 1.36, 95% CI 1.13-1.64) (moderate strength of evidence). Location of breastfeeding care did not affect hospitalization, other unplanned care utilization, or mental health symptoms (all low strength of evidence). Peer support was associated with higher rates of any or exclusive breastfeeding at 1 month and any breastfeeding at 3-6 months (summary effect size 1.10-1.22) but not other breastfeeding measures (all moderate strength of evidence). Care by a lactation consultant was associated with higher breastfeeding rates at 6 months (summary effect size 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.91) but not exclusive breastfeeding (all moderate strength of evidence). Use and nonuse of information technology for breastfeeding care were associated with comparable rates of breastfeeding (moderate strength of evidence). Testing reminders for screening or preventive care were associated with greater adherence to oral glucose tolerance testing but not random glucose or hemoglobin A 1c testing (moderate strength of evidence). CONCLUSION: Various strategies have been shown to improve some aspects of postpartum care, but future research is needed on the most effective care delivery strategies to improve postpartum health. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42022309756 .

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207