Using Text Messaging, Social Media, and Interviews to Understand What Pregnant Youth Think About Weight Gain During Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of pregnant youth gain more weight than recommended by the National Academy of Medicine guidelines. Excess weight gain during pregnancy increases the risk of dangerous complications during delivery, including operative delivery and stillbirth, and contributes to the risk of long-term obesity in both mother and child. Little is known regarding youth's perceptions of and knowledge about weight gain during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the feasibility and acceptability of 3 novel data collection and analysis strategies for use with youth (social media posts, text message surveys, and semistructured interviews) to explore their experiences during pregnancy. The mixed-methods analysis included natural language processing and thematic analysis. METHODS: To demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of this novel approach, we used descriptive statistics and thematic qualitative analysis to characterize participation and engagement in the study. RESULTS: Recruitment of 54 pregnant women aged between 16 and 24 years occurred from April 2016 to September 2016. All participants completed at least 1 phase of the study. Semistructured interviews had the highest rate of completion, yet all 3 strategies were feasible and acceptable to pregnant youth. CONCLUSIONS: This study has described a novel youth-centered strategy of triangulating 3 sources of mixed-methods data to gain a deeper understanding of a health behavior phenomenon among an at-risk population of youth.
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 | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".