PRENATAL SCREENING IN CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES MIDWIFERY PRACTICES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Midwifery practice in Canada and the United States (U.S.) developed along similar philosophical principles, but different practice models have evolved. Within these two frameworks of midwifery practice, this retrospective, exploratory study investigated the prenatal screening tests that often pose decision-making dilemmas for both clients and midwives. Women in the U.S. (n=60) were more likely to have four of the five prenatal screening tests than Canadian women (n=56). U.S. midwifery clients (n=60) more frequently received the genetic screen (p=0.029), HIV (p=0.0005), ultrasound (p=0.0005) and serum glucose screen (p=0.0005). Canadian midwifery clients (n=56) were more likely to receivehte Group BStreptococcus screen (p=0.004) than their US.. counterparts. In addition, hte mean number of ultrasounds performed during pregnancy was significantly higher for U.S. women than Canadian women (p=0.001). Women with any post-secondary education were more likely to choose to have the glucose screen (p=0.017) and primiparous women were more likely to have an ultrasound (p=0.020) and the glucose screen (p=0.038). Factors that may influence which tests women receive are discussed ni relation to the philosophic framework of midwifery practice in Canada and the U.S.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".