Counseling about gestational weight gain and healthy lifestyle during pregnancy: Canadian maternity care providers' self-evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is discord between the recall of maternity care providers and patients when it comes to discussion of gestational weight gain (GWG) and obesity management. Few women report being advised on GWG, physical activity (PA), and nutrition, yet the majority of health care providers report discussing these topics with patients. We evaluated whether various Canadian maternal health care providers can identify appropriate GWG targets for patients with obesity and determine if providers report counseling on GWG, physical activity, and nutrition. METHODS: A valid and reliable e-survey was created using SurveyMonkey software and distributed by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada listserve. A total of 174 health care providers finished the survey. Respondents self-identified as general practitioners, obstetricians, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, midwives, or registered nurses. RESULTS: GWG recommendations between disciplines for all body mass index categories were similar and fell within Health Canada/Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines. Of those who answered this question, 110/160 (68.8%) were able to correctly identify the maximum IOM GWG recommended for patients with obesity, yet midwives tended to recommend 0.5-1 kg more GWG (P = 0.05). PA counseling during pregnancy differed between disciplines (P < 0.01), as did nutrition counseling during pregnancy (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In contrast to patient reports, the majority of health care providers document counseling on GWG, PA, and nutrition and appropriately identify GWG limits for obese patients. However, the content and quality of the discourse between patient and provider warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".