Clinician self-efficacy in initiating discussions about gestational weight gain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare prenatal care providers' perceived self-efficacy in starting discussions about gestational weight gain with pregnant women under a variety of conditions of gradated difficulty, when weight gain has been in excess of current guidelines. DESIGN: A 42-item online questionnaire related to the known barriers to and facilitators of having discussions about gestational weight gain. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Prenatal care providers were contacted through the Family Medicine Maternity Care list server of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 42 items were clustered into categories representing patient factors, interpersonal factors, and system factors. Participants scored their self-efficacy on a scale from 0 ("cannot do at all") to 5 ("moderately certain can do") to 10 ("highly certain can do"). The significance level was set at α = .05. RESULTS: Overall, clinicians rated their self-efficacy to be high, ranging from a low mean (SD) score of 5.14 (3.24) if the clinic was running late, to a high mean score of 8.97 (1.34) if the clinician could externalize the reason for undertaking the discussion. There were significant differences in self-efficacy scores within categories depending on the degree of difficulty proposed by the items in those categories. CONCLUSION: The results were inconsistent with previous studies that have demonstrated that prenatal care providers do not frequently raise the subject of excess gestational weight gain. On the one hand providers rate their self-efficacy in having these discussions to be high, but on the other hand they do not undertake the behaviour, at least according to their patients. Future research should explore this discrepancy with a view to informing interventions to help providers and patients in their efforts to address excess gestational weight gain, which is increasingly an important contributor to the obesity epidemic.
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 | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".