22 Parental Perceptions and Patterns of Cannabis Use During Pregnancy and Breastfeeding at a Canadian Tertiary Obstetrics Centre
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background On October 17th, 2018, recreational cannabis use became legalized in Canada. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis. It has the ability to cross the placenta and enter fetal tissues during pregnancy and accumulate in breast milk postpartum. There is limited research on the long-term effects of cannabis use, particularly on the developing brain. Canadian guidelines recommend that women who are thinking about becoming pregnant, are pregnant, or breastfeeding should abstain from using cannabis. Objectives The objective of this study was to investigate parental perceptions and patterns of cannabis use during the pre- and post-natal periods. Design/Methods Participants were recruited from the women’s health unit at a tertiary care centre; a total of 102 patients or partners of patients who were currently pregnant or less than 6 months post-partum were enrolled in the study. Participants consented to complete an anonymous, online questionnaire including previously validated demographic questions and newly developed questions on cannabis use during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Chi-square tests were used for data analysis. Results Overall, 5.0% of pregnant women and 6.3% of breastfeeding women used cannabis daily or weekly. Women who did not complete high school were significantly more likely to use cannabis during pregnancy than women who completed higher levels of education (p < 0.001). Additionally, women who smoked cigarettes or vaped tobacco during pregnancy were significantly more likely to use cannabis during pregnancy (p < 0.001; p < 0.001). Among all participants, 22.6% and 30.4% believed there was no harm or were unsure of the harm associated with cannabis use during pregnancy and breastfeeding, respectively. Around half of the women who used cannabis during pregnancy or breastfeeding indicated that knowledge of the possible effects on the fetus or child would decrease their cannabis use. The majority of participants reported obtaining their information on cannabis use during breastfeeding from the internet (34.0%); while only 8.1% reported receiving information from a family doctor, 6.5% from an OBGYN, and 1.6% from a pediatrician. Legalization of cannabis had no reported effect on cannabis use during pregnancy and breastfeeding for the majority of participants. Conclusion It is clear that parents lack information about the safety of cannabis use during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Perinatal counselling should put an emphasis on educating parents on the risks associated with cannabis use during fetal development. In addition, given the overwhelming benefits of breastfeeding, harm reduction approaches to cannabis use while breastfeeding should be investigated.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».