MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600822721 · doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1257-0

Women’s perceptions of discussions about gestational weight gain with health care providers during pregnancy and postpartum: a qualitative study

2017· article· en· W2600822721 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hara Nikolopoulos, Maria Mayan, Jessica MacIsaac, Terri Miller, Rhonda C. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsAlberta Health Services
KeywordsMedicineUnderweightPregnancyWeight gainOverweightFocus groupQualitative researchFamily medicineObstetricsReproductive medicinePsychological interventionHealth careNursingBody mass indexBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Maternal body weight is an indicator of the health of a mother and her developing fetus. Risks of poor maternal and fetal health issues increase when women gain too little or too much weight during pregnancy. A study of 600 women from Alberta, Canada, reported approximately 30, 46, 80, and 80% of underweight, healthy weight, overweight, and obese women, respectively, gained in excess of Health Canada gestational weight gain guidelines. Behavioural interventions during pregnancy have shown to be effective at supporting women achieve gestational weight gain (GWG) recommendations and return to their pre-pregnancy weight postpartum, yet few women are counseled about weight gain during pregnancy. A discrepancy exists between health care providers' (HCP) reported counseling behaviours and women's perceptions of counseling by HCPs; most HCPs report counseling women about GWG; conversely, most women report not receiving counseling about GWG. This study explored women's experiences with GWG and their perceptions of discussions about GWG with HCPs during pregnancy and postpartum. This will help to identify gaps in service delivery and highlight areas for improvement that may better support women to achieve GWG recommendations leading to better health outcomes for women and children. METHODS: Five focus groups (n = 26) were conducted with women up to 1 year postpartum across the five Alberta health zones. Focus groups were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: GWG is important to women, for their health and for the health of their baby. In-depth conversations with HCPs about GWG or weight loss do not occur; however, women want the opportunity to discuss weight gain/loss with HCPs. Women would like discussions about gestational weight gain/loss to become part of standard care and offered to all women. CONCLUSIONS: Women suggested that discussions about GWG should occur with all women, and that HCPs should initiate these discussions by asking women how they feel about discussing weight. Conversations should begin early on in pregnancy and continue through to the postpartum period. Interventions assessing discussions about GWG should be implemented and evaluated as this has been identified as a gap in prenatal service delivery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207