MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3135455957 · doi:10.2196/27196

Implementation of the Living Well During Pregnancy Telecoaching Program for Women at High Risk of Excessive Gestational Weight Gain: Protocol for an Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Study

2021· article· en· W3135455957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susan de Jersey, Nina Meloncelli, Taylor Guthrie, Hilary Powlesland, Leonie Callaway, Angela T. Chang, Shelley A. Wilkinson, Tracy Comans, Elizabeth Eakin

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMetro North Hospital and Health ServiceUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyPopulationPsychological interventionHealth coachingProgram evaluationCoachingGestational diabetesFamily medicineGestationNursingIntervention (counseling)Environmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite comprehensive guidelines for healthy gestational weight gain (GWG) and evidence for the efficacy of dietary counseling coupled with weight monitoring on reducing excessive GWG, reporting on the effectiveness of interventions translated into routine antenatal care is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to implement and evaluate the Living Well during Pregnancy (LWdP) program in a large Australian antenatal care setting. Specifically, the LWdP program will be incorporated into usual care and delivered to a population of pregnant women at risk of excessive GWG through a dietitian-delivered telephone coaching service. METHODS: and gaining weight above recommendations at <20 weeks' gestation who are referred for dietetic care during the 12-month study period will be eligible for participation. The setting is a metropolitan hospital at which approximately 6% of the national births in Australia take place each year. Eligible participants will receive up to 10 telecoaching calls during their pregnancy. Primary outcomes will be service level indicators of reach, adoption, and implementation that will be compared with a retrospective control group, and secondary effectiveness outcomes will be participant-reported anthropometric and behavioral outcomes; all outcomes will be assessed pre- and postprogram completion. Additional secondary outcomes relate to the costs associated with program implementation and pregnancy outcomes gathered through routine clinical service data. RESULTS: Data collection of all variables was completed in December 2020, with results expected to be published by the end of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This study will evaluate the implementation of an evidence-based intervention into routine health service delivery and will provide the practice-based evidence needed to inform decisions about its incorporation into routine antenatal care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/27196.

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.012

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.438 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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