Listeriosis in pregnancy: survey of British Columbia practitioners' knowledge of risk factors, counseling practices, and learning needs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the knowledge, counseling practices, and learning needs of practitioners in British Columbia regarding risk factors for listeriosis in pregnancy. DESIGN: A 1-page, mailed, self-administered, anonymous questionnaire. SETTING: British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 827 practitioners (614 family physicians, 93 midwives, and 120 family practice residents) were sent the questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Awareness of listeriosis, knowledge of the risk factors for listeriosis, practices for counseling pregnant women, practitioners' learning needs, and provider and practice characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 340 practitioners (41%) completed the questionnaire. While most (88%) physicians and midwives had heard of listeriosis, few (18%) were aware that infection was more common during pregnancy. One-third (33%) of practitioners counseled pregnant women about the risk factors for listeriosis. The main reasons for not providing such counseling were lack of knowledge and the perception that listeriosis was rare and not an important concern for pregnant women. Rates of counseling were highest among midwives (84%) and lowest among physicians practising outside the Lower Mainland of British Columbia (12%). Of those practitioners providing prenatal care, 47% counseled pregnant women about the risks of unpasteurized milk and 41% counseled women about the risks of consuming soft cheese; few counseled about the risks of consuming deli meat or raw hot dogs (25%), unwashed fruit and vegetables (12%), or refrigerated smoked seafood (6%). CONCLUSION: Most prenatal care providers in British Columbia are unaware of the risk factors for listeriosis or its propensity for pregnant women and do not counsel their pregnant patients about these risks.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".