Public preferences for counseling regarding antidepressant use during pregnancy: A discrete choice experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Counseling about medication safety during pregnancy is delivered inconsistently. The objectives were to determine public preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for attributes of counseling regarding antidepressant use during pregnancy. Attributes reflected counseling via a telephone Teratology Information Service (TIS) or a visit to a general practitioner (GP). METHODS: A discrete choice survey was conducted with volunteers recruited from the general public. Stated preferences and WTP for teratology counseling were described by six attributes: training of information provider (IP), method of contact, knowing the IP, confidence in the IP, helpfulness of information, and cost. Interactions of preferences with participant characteristics were examined. RESULTS: Of 175 participants, 85% were women and 91% had some college or university education. All attributes had a significant effect on choice. The most important attribute was the helpfulness of information received (WTP C$59 for very helpful information). Counseling via telephone by a trained specialist was preferred, as in a TIS. It was preferred, however, to speak with a provider known to the user (WTP C$43) which is common in a GP setting. Maximum willingness to pay for very helpful information was less for respondents with less education. Respondents who stated that an antidepressant exposure would make them anxious about the pregnancy were willing to pay more for all attributes. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that TIS is the preferred model for counseling regarding to antidepressant use during pregnancy. The public valued information that was helpful and preferred receiving information in nontraditional formats; however, familiarity with the provider was important.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".