Efficacy of a Physicians’ Pocket Guide about Prenatal Substance Use: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pocket guide on management of substance use during pregnancy was developed by a group of Canadian care providers. One hundred and fifteen family medicine residents in 6 Canadian teaching sites were randomized to receive either the pocket guide or a paper summary on similar clinical topics, based on UpToDate, a comprehensive Web-based resource. At baseline, both groups completed a survey containing questions on beliefs, attitudes, experience, and training on pregnancy and substance use. Participants then answered 28 multiple choice questions about substance use in pregnancy, using either the pocket guide or UpToDate. Finally participants were asked to rate ease of use for the 2 resources. The results showed that the pocket guide group had higher knowledge scores than the UpToDate group overall and at each study site (61.27% vs. 42.86%, P < .001). The residents found the pocket guide easier to use than UpToDate (mean = 2.73 vs. 4.36, P < .001), and were more likely to want to use it again (96% for pocket card, 78% for UpToDate, P = .005). It is concluded that the pocket guide is a practical source of clinical information at point of care, particularly for "orphan" subjects such as substance use in pregnancy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".