How much do family physicians involve pregnant women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which family physicians (FPs) involve women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome. METHODS: Based on transcripts of consultations between 41 FPs and 128 women, two raters independently assessed clinician's efforts to involve women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome using the French-language version of OPTION. Descriptive statistics of OPTION scores were calculated. Construct validity was assessed by performing a principal factor analysis and by measuring association with consultation duration and FPs sociodemograhics. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and inter-rater reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The overall mean OPTION score was low: 19 +/- 7 (range = 0 [no involvement] to 100 [high involvement]). One factor accounted for 80% of the variance. Both internal consistency and inter-rater reliability were very good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.73; ICC = 0.76). OPTION scores were lower for residents than for licensed FPs (17 +/- 5 vs 21 +/- 4; p = 0.02) and were positively associated with duration of consultation (r = 0.56; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on the French-language version of OPTION, which showed satisfactory psychometric properties, FPs studied put minimal efforts to involve women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".