MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001679665 · doi:10.7939/r3-rrwm-3413

Obstetrician and Gynecologist’s Perspectives on the Definition and Management of Obesity in Pregnancy

2019· article· en· W3001679665 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shawna M. Stafford

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyGynecologyObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Obesity is a complex disease affecting increasing numbers of reproductive aged women. Despite ongoing research efforts, many knowledge gaps remain when caring for women with obesity in pregnancy. Currently, there is no clearly defined, comprehensive standard of care for pregnant women with obesity. Consequently, obstetricians and gynecologists (OBGYNs) have developed different approaches. In this study, how the management of women with obesity differs from that of normal weight patients was explored. Another aim was to gain a better understanding of how OBGYNs define obesity, as there is currently no consensus definition. Methods: A mixed methods approach was used. Qualitative concept maps were generated through individual in-depth mapping sessions with seven OBGYNs and analyzed thematically. Major themes informed survey development. The resultant survey was distributed to OBs in Edmonton (n=58). Responses were entered into a Research Electronic Data Capture Database (REDCap) and descriptive statistics performed. Finally, semi-structured interviews with residents in obstetrics and gynecology were conducted until saturation about the current working definition and ideal definition of obesity in pregnancy. Ethics approval was obtained. Results/Conclusions: Obstetrics and Gynecology residents and staff physicians relied on varying subjective measures to classify patients as having obesity or not. They defined and appreciated risk secondary to obesity at different Body Mass Index (BMI) points. While they found it useful, BMI was not routinely used and on its own was felt to be insufficient to define obesity. Clinicians prefer a definition of obesity that incorporates a more comprehensive picture of patient health and wellbeing. This could include medical comorbidities and specific barriers to care that may provide insight into weight distribution. Establishing a consensus definition and classification of obesity in pregnancy would allow for more standardized care plans to be developed. Limited professional education opportunities, lack of specific counseling tools, time constraints, and negative bias toward women with obesity in pregnancy all act as barriers to providing evidence-based care to women with obesity. Education strategies addressing these barriers will help empower obstetrical care providers to become champions of weight management in the future. Current guidelines do not address many of the areas physicians identify as challenging and important in the care of women with obesity in pregnancy. Revision of national guidelines should incorporate those areas OBGYNs deem most crucial to providing high level care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207