Making Decisions about Cannabis Use during Pregnancy: A Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context: Since the Canadian legalization of recreational cannabis use in 2018, cannabis use has increased, including during pregnancy, although prevalence rates are difficult to determine. The evidence of clinical harm of prenatal cannabis use is still emerging, with some signals that prenatal cannabis use is associated with pre-term birth, small for gestational age, and some neurodevelopmental outcomes in childhood. However, many pregnant people perceive benefit to their cannabis use, and wish to continue using during pregnancy. Objective: Describe the motivations and decision-making processes of pregnant people who use cannabis. Study Design and Analysis: We used Constructivist Grounded Theory to conduct semi-structured interviews with pregnant or lactating people who made a decision about prenatal cannabis use. Setting or Dataset: All participants lived in Canada Population Studied: Pregnant or lactating people, 19 years of age or older who made a decision about ceasing, continuing, or initiating cannabis use. Intervention/Instrument: Semi-structured interviews Outcome Measures: Qualitative perceptions, experiences, opinions and beliefs. Results: We interviewed 52 pregnant and lactating people who spoke about their cannabis use decisions in their current and previous pregnancies. They perceived that cannabis use during pregnancy may carry risk to their fetus, although few were able to specifically articulate what that risk was. Those who perceived benefit to their cannabis use made deliberate and thoughtful decisions about how to balance that risk and benefit, using information gleaned online and from known sources. Those who continued to use cannabis during pregnancy were motivated by a desire to manage symptoms and secondarily, to cope with the unpleasant aspects of life. After giving birth, they were more likely to endorse recreational reasons for using cannabis. Conclusions: Participants considered cannabis use during pregnancy and lactation as two separate decisions. They were clear that their motivation to use cannabis was prompted by the benefits they perceived in relation to symptom management and coping with the unpleasant aspects of life. They made careful decisions, informed by the information that was available to them, although they often judged this information to be insufficient. They desire clear and comprehensive, evidence-based information to help them balance the risks and benefits of perinatal cannabis use.
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 | 0,012 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 ».