MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postpartum Emergency Department Use Following Midwifery-Model vs Obstetrics-Model Care

2024· article· en· W4396217644 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Carla Sorbara, Joel G. Ray, Elizabeth Darling, Hannah Chung, Sho Podolsky, Thérèse A. Stukel

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesNorth York General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsObstetrics and gynaecologyPoisson regressionPopulationEmergency departmentPregnancyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Emergency department (ED) use postpartum is a common and often-preventable event. Unlike traditional obstetrics models, the Ontario midwifery model offers early care postpartum. Objective: To assess whether postpartum ED use differs between women who received perinatal care in midwifery-model care vs in traditional obstetrics-model care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based cohort study took place in Ontario, Canada, where public health care is universally funded. Participants included women who were low risk and primiparous and gave birth to a live baby in an Ontario hospital between 2012 and 2018. Data were collected from April 2012 to March 2018 and analyzed from June 2022 to April 2023. Exposures: Perinatal care clinician, namely, a midwife or obstetrician. Main Outcome and Measures: : Any unscheduled ED visit 42 days postpartum or less. Poisson regression models compared ED use between women with midwifery-model care vs obstetrics-model care, weighting by propensity score-based overlap weights. Results: Among 104 995 primiparous women aged 11 to 50 years, those in midwifery-model care received a median (IQR) of 7 (6-8) postpartum visits, compared with 0 (0-1) visits among those receiving obstetrics-model care. Unscheduled ED visits 42 days or less postpartum occurred for 1549 of 23 124 women (6.7%) with midwifery-model care compared with 6902 of 81 871 women (8.4%) with traditional obstetrics-model care (adjusted relative risks [aRR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.83). Similar aRRs were seen in women with a spontaneous vaginal birth (aRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.78) or assisted vaginal birth (aRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.82) but not those with a cesarean birth (aRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.03) or those with intrapartum transfer of care between a midwife and obstetrician (aRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.04). ED use 7 days or less postpartum was also lower among women receiving midwifery model care (aRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, midwifery-model care was associated with less postpartum ED use than traditional obstetrics-model care among women who had low risk and were primiparous, which may be due to early access to postpartum care provided by Ontario midwives.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207