Knowledge, attitude and practice of physicians regarding periconceptional folic acid for women at low risk of a neural tube defect affected pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian expert guidelines recommend low-risk women to consume a daily multivitamin supplement containing 400 µg of folic acid (FA) to prevent neural tube defects. Mandatory food fortification coupled with intake of prenatal vitamin/mineral supplements (PVS), most of which contain ≥ 1000 µg-FA, has resulted in an unprecedented shift in Canadian pregnant women folate status. This study assessed the knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of physicians regarding periconceptional FA recommendations, intake and health related outcomes, since they play an essential role in promoting appropriate FA intake. Seventy-seven physicians answered the self-administered KAP survey. Only half of physicians knew the correct dose and duration of FA for low-risk women. Approximately 70% were unsure of, or unfamiliar with the most recent guidelines and 60% of physicians most often recommend a ≥ 1000 µg-FA supplement. Knowledge score 1 (KS1), which related to low-risk women, was associated with physicians’ attitude toward believing that most PVS contain the recommended amount of FA (p = 0.004). Significant correlations were also found between KS1 and the total practice score (TPS) (r = 0.45, p < 0.0001) as well as between the total knowledge score and TPS (r = 0.38, p = 0.0007). Our findings show that physicians lacking knowledge regarding periconceptional FA is associated with their attitude and practice. Despite a vast majority of physicians being unsure or uncomfortable recommending PVS that are not in line with recommendations, a lack of knowledge and a widely accessible 400 µg-FA PVS, enables a contradictory practice in reality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".