MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3012814053 · doi:10.2196/16478

Engaging Patients and Professionals to Evaluate the Seriousness of Maternal and Child Health Outcomes: Protocol for a Modified Delphi Study

2020· article· en· W3012814053 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lisa M. Bodnar, Dmitry Khodyakov, Katherine P. Himes, Jessica G. Burke, Sara M. Parisi, Jennifer A. Hutcheon

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsSeriousnessProtocol (science)Delphi methodMedicineHealth professionalsNursingPsychologyMedical educationHealth careComputer scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Maternal weight gain during pregnancy is one of the few potentially modifiable risk factors for many adverse maternal and child health outcomes. Defining the optimal pregnancy weight gain range is difficult because, while lower weight gain may prevent some outcomes, such as maternal and child obesity, it may increase the risk of others such as fetal growth restriction and infant death. These health outcomes vary in their seriousness to mothers and their health care providers, and these differences in seriousness should be taken into account when determining optimal weight gain ranges. However, the relative seriousness that women and their care providers place on different health outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We will determine the seriousness of 11 maternal and child health outcomes that have been consistently associated with pregnancy weight gain. We will achieve this by engaging patients and maternal and child health professionals using an online modified Delphi panel process. METHODS: We aim to recruit a racially/ethnically and geographically diverse group of 90 US maternal and child health professionals and 90 women who are pregnant or less than 2 years postpartum. We will conduct 3 concurrent panels using the ExpertLens system, a previously evaluated online modified Delphi system that combines 2 rounds of rating with 1 round of feedback and moderated online discussion. In Round 1, panelists are asked to rate the seriousness of each health outcome on a scale of 0-100 and to provide a rationale for their scores. In Round 2, panelists will review their responses relative to those of other panelists. They will discuss their seriousness ratings anonymously using a moderated online discussion board. In Round 3, participants will revise their Round 1 responses based on group feedback and discussion. Each round will be open for 1-2 weeks. RESULTS: The study protocol was reviewed by our ethics boards and did not require approval as human research. A pilot study of 6 professionals and 7 patients was completed in December 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Our numeric estimates of the seriousness of maternal and child health outcomes will enable future studies to determine pregnancy weight gain ranges that balance the risks of low and high weight gain for mothers and children. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16478.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.129
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1290.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.012

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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→