Pregnant women's knowledge, practices, and needs related to food safety and listeriosis: a study in British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the knowledge, attitudes, practices, and needs of pregnant women regarding food safety, including the risk of listeriosis, in order to develop targeted messages and educational resources in British Columbia (BC). DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups and quantitative study using a standardized questionnaire. SETTING: Seven family practice clinics in BC. Focus groups were conducted in 3 program groups for new mothers. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women and women who had recently delivered babies. METHODS: Three focus groups were conducted with women who had recently delivered. Qualitative analysis to identify common themes was conducted. A questionnaire was completed by pregnant women at their health care providers' (HCPs') offices. Statistical analysis was done to assess associations between demographic features, knowledge, and practices. Results from both study methods were compared and common findings were presented. MAIN FINDINGS: Participants reported that food safety and the risk of listeriosis were important to them during pregnancy; however, their knowledge of high-risk foods and safe food practices was limited. Although they identified their HCPs as a valuable source of information, they explained there were barriers to getting information from them. Participants reported doing their own research using books, websites, and social networks. They made recommendations to improve food safety messages, as well as the availability and format of resources. CONCLUSION: Women in BC identified a gap between the information on food safety and listeriosis that they needed during pregnancy and the resources that were available. Using the information collected from this study, resources that are targeted at women of childbearing years, as well as their HCPs, are under development in BC.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".