The impact of an educational pamphlet on knowledge and anxiety in women with preeclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate whether or not an educational pamphlet could improve knowledge without increasing anxiety in women with preeclampsia. METHODS: One hundred women recruited from an inpatient setting with suspected or proven preeclampsia were asked to answer a questionnaire assessing demographics, knowledge (primary outcome), anxiety and satisfaction (secondary outcomes) after being randomized to an intervention group (who received a pamphlet) or a control group (who did not received a pamphlet). The pamphlet and questionnaire, both designed by a multidisciplinary team, were read and answered at the same time. RESULTS: Baseline and demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups. Knowledge about the symptoms of pre-eclampsia was excellent in both groups (61% to 100% correct answers). Women in both groups were well aware that preeclampsia in the past (P = 0.22) and a family history of preeclampsia (P = 0.57) were risk factors. There was a significant difference in knowledge about the risk of some fetal complications, including death (90% versus 39%, P < 0.01) and all maternal complications (P < 0.05) favouring the intervention group. Despite increased knowledge about preeclampsia and its risks, anxiety was not greater in the intervention group. Overall, there was a trend towards less knowledge in vulnerable subgroups (non-white, low income and schooling levels), but the improvement of knowledge with the pamphlet was equivalent. Baseline anxiety was higher in the vulnerable groups, but was generally not increased by the pamphlet. CONCLUSION: An educational pamphlet for women with suspected preeclampsia was able to increase knowledge without increasing anxiety.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".