Assessing antenatal psychosocial health. Randomized controlled trial of two versions of the ALPHA form.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether participants preferred a provider-completed or self-reported antenatal psychosocial health assessment (ALPHA) form, to evaluate the forms' effectiveness in facilitating disclosure of psychosocial issues, and to determine whether different providers gathered different information. DESIGN: Randomized controlled study. SETTING: Offices of family physicians and public health nurses (PHNs) in three health regions on Prince Edward Island. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, PHNs, and 76 pregnant women. INTERVENTIONS: Participants completed one form and a questionnaire on theirexperience. Providers were also interviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Suitability and effectiveness of the forms and frequency of issues disclosed by type of form and provider. RESULTS: Most participants would recommend routine use of the ALPHA form for all pregnant women. Of the 238 psychosocial issues disclosed, significantly more were disclosed to physicians than to PHNs. CONCLUSION: Both forms were acceptable to women and providers (no clear preference emerged) and were effective at gathering information. Physicians gathered significantly more information than PHNs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".