MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784239472 · doi:10.1017/s0266462317003087

VP14 Screening Recommendations For Socioeconomic Disadvantages In Pregnancy

2017· article· en· W2784239472 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katharina Rosian

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineNiceMedicinePovertySocioeconomic statusFamily medicineExcellenceDisadvantagedPregnancyPopulationPrenatal careEnvironmental healthHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In 2015, 18.3 percent of the Austrian population were at risk of poverty and social exclusion - about 211,000 (20 percent) women aged 20–39 years were affected. International studies report that poverty may lead to an increased risk of complications and pathologies during pregnancy. Further, children who grow up in poverty often have poorer long-term health outcomes. METHODS: In order to identify recent guidelines (2011-2016) a comprehensive handsearch was conducted in the guideline databases National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and Guidelines International Network (GIN). Moreover, a handsearch for systematic reviews and primary studies was conducted in PubMed. RESULTS: Two guidelines, the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guideline “Pregnancy and Complex Social Factors”, as well as the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council (AHMAC) Guideline “Antenatal Care”, address socioeconomic disadvantages of women during antenatal care. The recommendation of the AHMAC is that pregnancy care should be offered to all pregnant women. In addition, an individual approach will help to pay particular attention to socioeconomic factors and to incorporate them in routine examinations. NICE recommends in its guideline, affected women should be supported in order to ensure adequate prenatal care. NICE also defines criteria which are used to identify pregnant women who are in greater need of support. The only identified study developed and tested a tool for the identification of patients affected by poverty. The authors of this Canadian pilot study concluded that the defined questions helped to identify socioeconomically disadvantaged persons during anamnesis without stigmatizing. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the proven link between poverty and health risks, special attention must be paid to socioeconomically disadvantaged pregnant women. Research on non-stigmatizing instruments, which can identify vulnerable women, is of great importance. In addition to social policy measures, it is necessary to ensure that low-threshold services are available for socioeconomic disadvantaged women and their children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.466 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207