Costs of postpartum care: examining associations from the Ontario mother and infant survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cross-sectional survey of 1,250 mothers of "normal" newborn infants was conducted to assess mother and infant characteristics as well as the costs of health and social services used in the first 4 weeks after discharge from hospital in the province of Ontario, Canada. Each mother was asked to recall use of services for herself and her infant. This utilization was multiplied by the unit cost of each service and summed to arrive at the total cost of services used. Although re-admission rates were low (1% for mothers, 4% for infants), costs associated with hospital and emergency room care ($194 on average per mother/infant dyad) accounted for the greatest proportion of total health-care costs. Physician or midwife visits, which were received by almost all mothers, were the next most costly service ($128 on average per dyad). Mothers with incomes under $20,000 had more medical costs than those with higher incomes. Costs of community nursing care ($86 on average per dyad) were higher for mothers with more than 5 self-identified learning needs (e.g., infant feeding, infant care and behaviour, emotional changes in self, signs of illness in infant); perception of their own health as poor; perception of inadequate help and support at home; many signs and symptoms of depression; and postpartum hospital stay of 48 hours or less. Costs for social work visits were higher for mothers with depression and mothers with low incomes. Total health and social service costs were double for mothers with family incomes under $20,000 ($788 vs. $399 on average per dyad) and for mothers with clinical depression ($845 vs. $413). Specifically, nursing care costs were greater for mothers with high depression scores ($135 vs. $81).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".