Supporting healthy pregnancies: Examining variations in nutrition, weight management and substance abuse advice provision by prenatal care providers in Alberta, Canada. A study using the All Our Families cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pregnancy is a critical time for fetal development, and education of women regarding healthy lifestyle choices is an important function for prenatal care providers, those that provide care to women during pregnancy. Within Canada, women choose to receive pregnancy care from one of a variety of publicly funded care providers. This study examines the association between the type of care provider(s) seen during pregnancy and the provision of advice related to nutrition, weight management and substance abuse. METHODS: Using data from the Alberta-based All Our Families prospective pregnancy cohort, we conducted bivariate and multivariate analyses to determine the likelihood of receiving advice related to nutrition, weight management, and substance abuse across provider(s) seen. RESULTS: Of 3341 women in our sample, 38% saw a single provider during pregnancy and 56% received care from multiple providers. Advice on nutrition was more likely to be provided across all providers, while weight management and substance abuse was less frequently and less consistently discussed. Relative to doctors in low-risk maternity clinics, midwives were most likely to provide nutrition (OR: 3.09, 95% CI: 1.19-8.01) and weight management (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.13-3.50) advice to women. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that the type of prenatal advice received by women depends on the provider(s) seen during pregnancy. Substance abuse was least likely to be discussed across providers, suggesting important implications given recent cannabis legalization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".