MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083679906 · doi:10.22374/cjmrp.v23i1.16

Equity In Care: Midwifery In Ontario During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2024· article· en· W7083679906 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)PandemicHealth careCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakFace (sociological concept)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on midwifery care in Ontario. Midwives faced unique challenges in delivering high-quality care while protecting themselves and their clients from infection during the pandemic. Our first objective in this study was to understand the general impact of the pandemic on midwifery practice to document the challenges midwives faced, and how they adapted their work. What information, resources, and support did they receive to deal with the challenges, and what strategies did they develop to maintain their unique model of care under such constraints? Our second objective was to look closely at how midwives worked to mitigate the pandemic’s unequal burden on racialized and marginalized clients as COVID-19 laid bare and exacerbated existing divides in the healthcare landscape. How did they adapt care for vulnerable groups during a time of crisis? RÉSUMÉLe présent article examine l’incidence de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les soins sage-femme en Ontario. Les sages-femmes ont affronté des défis exceptionnels : elles devaient offrir des soins de haute qualité tout en protégeant leur clientèle et elles-mêmes contre l’infection. Le premier objectif de notre étude consistait à comprendre l’impact de la pandémie sur la pratique sage-femme en général et à prendre note des défis auxquels les sages-femmes ont fait face et des façons dont elles ont adapté leur travail. Quels renseignements, quelles ressources et quels soutiens ont obtenu les sages-femmes pour relever les défis et quelles stratégies ont-elles conçu pour maintenir le modèle de soins qui leur est propre sous de telles contraintes? Nous avions comme deuxième objectif d’examiner de près la façon dont les sages-femmes ont travaillé pour atténuer le fardeau inégal imposé à la clientèle racisée et marginalisée, alors que la COVID-19 mettait à nu et accentuait les fossés présents dans le paysage des soins de santé. Comment les sages-femmes ont-elles adapté les soins prodigués à ces groupes vulnérables durant cette crise?

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.295
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and PracticeSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207