A Healthy Eating Education Program for Midwives to Investigate and Explore Their Knowledge, Understanding, and Confidence to Support Pregnant Women to Eat Healthily: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutrition and healthy eating behaviors during pregnancy are vitally important for the health of a mother and her developing baby. However, some midwives have reported a lack of evidence-based nutrition knowledge for providing information about healthy eating to women during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: In this study, the aim is to design and evaluate a healthy eating education program to enhance midwives' knowledge, understanding, and confidence to support pregnant women in South Australia to make healthy eating choices. METHODS: This mixed-methods study consists of two phases. The first phase, Phase 1, consists of an education program for midwives, "Healthy Eating in Pregnancy," to be delivered through a workshop or webinar. Each midwife will attend one workshop or webinar, which will be approximately two hours in length. This program will be evaluated through pre-, immediate-, and post-educational questionnaires utilizing a website specifically designed for this study. The participants will be midwives who are members of the Australian College of Midwives and the Australian Nursing and Midwives Federation, and users of social media (eg, Facebook and Twitter) residing and employed in South Australia. Phase 2 will consist of semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of midwives. These interviews will be undertaken to gain an in-depth understanding of midwives' views and how confident they feel educating pregnant women after receiving the healthy eating education. Interviews will be face-to-face or conducted by telephone with midwives who have participated in the healthy eating educational program. RESULTS: A systematic review has previously been undertaken to inform this study protocol. This paper describes and discusses the protocol for this mixed-methods study, which will be completed in April 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the systematic review suggest that there is clear justification to undertake this mixed-methods study to investigate and explore midwives' knowledge, understanding and confidence to support healthy eating in pregnant women. The results and conclusions from the systematic review provided some guidance for the design and development of this study protocol. This mixed-methods study will address a gap in the literature. The results from quantitative and qualitative data sources in this proposed study will help to draw conclusions to address the research topic. REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/9861.
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 | 0.046 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.009 |
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".