Pregnant Women's Beliefs About Medications—A Study Among 866 Norwegian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Beliefs about medication may impact a woman's decision to take a needed medication during pregnancy. While many women will be faced with decisions regarding medication use during pregnancy, there is a paucity of research on this topic in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To study pregnant women's beliefs about medication and factors that determine those beliefs. METHODS: A questionnaire was posted at the University of Oslo's Web site for Internet surveys for 5 weeks from mid-September 2008 through October 2008. Seven general statements from the "Beliefs about Medicines" questionnaire and 9 pregnancy-specific statements were used to assess pregnant women's attitudes toward medication use during pregnancy. Other information, such as sociodemographic background and personal medication use during pregnancy, was also collected. RESULTS: A total of 866 pregnant women completed the questionnaire. Most women had a positive attitude toward medication in general, but believed pregnant women should be more restrictive regarding use than nonpregnant women. There was a significant association between women's education, occupation, and attitudes, with less educated women believing that medications in general were harmful and herbal remedies were safe, while women with a higher education were more reluctant to use any medication in pregnancy. Women with health-related occupations were more knowledgeable about the possible risks of untreated illness during pregnancy. There was also an association between pregnant women's attitudes and their use of prescribed penicillins and herbal remedies. CONCLUSIONS: Most pregnant women believe that medicines in general are helpful and safe to use. However, they are much more restrictive and unsure about use during pregnancy. Health-care professionals should be aware of such attitudes when advising a woman to take a needed medication during pregnancy.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".