Relationship between geographic accessibility to emergency services and infant mortality: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the methodological quality of studies that analysed the relationship between accessibility to emergency services and infant mortality. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis, registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) platform under code CRD42021279854. Medline/Pubmed, Embase, SciElo, Lilacs, Scopus and web of science electronic databases were searched between November 2021 and May 2024, without language or publication time restriction. We included observational studies that compared the infant mortality outcome with the different distances travelled or travel time to health services in a paediatric emergency. Thus, we excluded studies with primary outcomes present in the pre- and perinatal periods, as well as distances or travel time to obstetric emergency units. We used the grade to assess the methodological quality of the studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the risk of bias, in addition to performing a meta-analysis. RESULTS: The evidence quality on infant mortality was moderate for four studies and low for three studies. The meta-analysis showed that children who travelled more than 5 km to the emergency service had a 28% increase in the chance of dying (P = 0.002), as well as those travelling for more than 40 min increased by 45% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a relationship between the increase in geographic accessibility distance and travel time with the increase in infant mortality. However, the studies still showed moderate to low methodological quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".