Preferences of caregiver when experiencing nausea and vomiting during pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the preferences of pregnant women regarding the type of assistance desired to alleviate the consequences of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP). METHODS: Women with NVP were asked to complete an online survey of 12 questions assessing the extent of NVP and the perspective on the importance of different healthcare professionals for their improvement. RESULTS: A total of 121 pregnant women completed the survey. The median maternal age was 29 years and the average gestational age was 12.4+/-7.6 weeks. Sixty-four of the women (52.9%) had NVP in their previous pregnancy, which resulted in an average of 14.6+/-21.1 lost days of paid work. NVP necessitated admission to the emergency room in 36 (29.7%). When asked to rate (max 4 points) which healthcare professional would provide the best assistance for NVP, the physician was rated as the most important (average score of 3.56/4), followed by dietician (3.40/4), nurse (3.05/4) and social worker/psychologist as least important (1.77/4). CONCLUSION: Our findings illustrate women's perspective on NVP. According to our online survey, women perceive medically- and nutritionally-based care as most useful, whereas psychosocial factors are perceived to be less useful despite playing a central role in NVP.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".