MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212970183 · doi:10.2196/32235

Understanding Information Needs and Barriers to Accessing Health Information Across All Stages of Pregnancy: Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4212970183 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lu Yu, Laura A. Barrett, Rebecca Lin, Muhammad Amith, Cui Tao, Zhe He

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsCINAHLInformation needsPregnancyInclusion (mineral)MedicineSystematic reviewInformation qualityMEDLINEInformation systemFamily medicineNursingPsychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Understanding consumers' health information needs across all stages of the pregnancy trajectory is crucial to the development of mechanisms that allow them to retrieve high-quality, customized, and layperson-friendly health information. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify research gaps in pregnancy-related consumer information needs and available information from different sources. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, and Web of Science for relevant articles that were published from 2009 to 2019. The quality of the included articles was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program. A descriptive data analysis was performed on these articles. Based on the review result, we developed the Pregnancy Information Needs Ontology (PINO) and made it publicly available in GitHub and BioPortal. RESULTS: A total of 33 articles from 9 countries met the inclusion criteria for this review, of which the majority were published no earlier than 2016. Most studies were either descriptive (9/33, 27%), interviews (7/33, 21%), or surveys/questionnaires (7/33, 21%); 20 articles mentioned consumers' pregnancy-related information needs. Half (9/18, 50%) of the human-subject studies were conducted in the United States. More than a third (13/33, 39%) of all studies focused on during-pregnancy stage; only one study (1/33, 3%) was about all stages of pregnancy. The most frequent consumer information needs were related to labor delivery (9/20, 45%), medication in pregnancy (6/20, 30%), newborn care (5/20, 25%), and lab tests (6/20, 30%). The most frequently available source of information was the internet (15/24, 63%). PINO consists of 267 classes, 555 axioms, and 271 subclass relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Only a few articles assessed the barriers to access to pregnancy-related information and the quality of each source of information; further work is needed. Future work is also needed to address the gaps between the information needed and the information available.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.138
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.138
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207