Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Prenatal Alcohol Use and Cigarette Smoking: A Survey of Academic and Community Health Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prenatal alcohol and cigarette smoking are associated with numerous adverse pregnancy outcomes. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) represents a standardized approach; however, implementation in routine pregnancy care remains a challenge. The purpose of the study was to determine current practices, barriers to implementation, and education needs of healthcare providers utilizing SBIRT to address prenatal alcohol and cigarette smoking. METHODS: We conducted a survey of 118 providers including family physicians, midwives, and obstetricians practicing at 2 Toronto hospitals: community-based teaching site and fully affiliated academic health sciences center. RESULTS: The response rate was 79%. Almost all providers reported screening every pregnant woman for alcohol and smoking status. Brief intervention was offered by fewer providers. Education and supportive counseling were reported by a higher percentage of providers for prenatal cigarette smoking in comparison to alcohol use. Furthermore, up to 60% referred pregnant women to treatment programs for alcohol and cigarette smoking. A significantly higher number of community-based providers reported referring pregnant women to addiction treatment programs. Barriers to interventions included a perceived lack of appropriate resources, training, and clinical pathways. CONCLUSION: Healthcare providers report universal screening for prenatal alcohol and cigarette smoking; however, brief intervention and referral to treatment are more limited practices. There is a need for education of all providers regarding effective brief counseling strategies and referral to appropriate treatment resources. Development of clinical care pathways may also increase adoption of all components of SBIRT for prenatal alcohol use and cigarette smoking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".