Variation in Health Care Provider Definitions of Moderate Consumption of Alcohol as Related to Recommendations Regarding Alcohol Consumption During Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women rely on health care providers for general health care and preconception counseling, including advice on alcohol consumption. Definitions of moderate consumption may differ by individual provider, resulting in inconsistency in advice and lack of clarity for patients both before and during pregnancy. The objective of this study was to determine if health care providers' definition of moderate alcohol consumption was associated with advice to pregnant women regarding alcohol use during pregnancy and to describe health care providers' communication regarding alcohol consumption. Between October 2001 and October 2002, a survey was mailed to a national random sample of 3114 Canadian obstetricians and gynecologists, midwives, and family physicians. The main outcome measure was questionnaire responses regarding knowledge and prevention issues related to alcohol and pregnancy as well as provider characteristics. Response rates ranged from 31.1% among family physicians to 63.5% among midwives. Moderate alcohol consumption among nonpregnant women was defined as 1 to 2 drinks per occasion by about 89% of providers and did not relate to recommendations during pregnancy. Those who recommended abstinence during pregnancy were more likely to define moderation as 4 or more occasions per week as compared with those who did not recommend abstinence (P=0.022). Fewer than 50% of providers frequently defined "moderation" for their patients. More family physicians (90.0%) than obstetricians (83.9%) or midwives (81.1%) recommended alcohol abstinence during pregnancy (overall 87.8%, P=0.005). Thus, there is opportunity for providers to appropriately counsel their patients by advising alcohol abstinence during pregnancy and more frequently defining "moderation" for all clients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".