Psychosocial morbidity among women with nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: Prevalence and association with anti-emetic therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike severe nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP), it is not known whether milder forms of NVP have been associated with psychosocial morbidity. We undertook the study to explore the prevalence of psychosocial morbidity by severity of NVP, and determine whether, after correction for severity of nausea/vomiting, there is a relationship between psychosocial morbidity and women's decisions to take anti-emetics as a reflection of their distress due to NVP. From 1996-97, an NVP Healthline was advertised. Callers underwent semi-structured interviews about both their NVP and associated psychosocial morbidity in a previous pregnancy. Most of the 3201 callers resided in Canada, worked outside the home, reported on planned pregnancy (a median of) 4 years before, and described severe (> 5 episodes/day of) nausea and vomiting. More severe nausea/vomiting was associated with more frequent feelings of depression, consideration of termination of pregnancy, adverse effects on women's relationships with their partners or their partners' everyday lives, and the perceived likelihood that NVP would harm their baby (p < 0.0001). However, all psychosocial factors were reported by a clinically important proportion of women with mild nausea/vomiting (0-1 episodes/day). The severity of vomiting was most closely related to women's decisions to take anti-emetics, but other psychosocial factors were also independently associated with anti-emetic therapy. We conclude that psychosocial morbidity is evident across the spectrum of severity of nausea and vomiting among women with NVP. The severity of nausea or vomiting does not appear adequately to reflect the distress caused by NVP, as reflected by women's decisions to take anti-emetic therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".