MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366781132

Counseling about gestational weight gain and healthy lifestyle during pregnancy: Canadian maternity care providers' self-evaluation

2013· article· en· W4366781132 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ferraro ZM, Boehm KS, Gaudet LM, Adamo KB

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstetricsMaternity carePregnancyWeight gainMedicineBody weight
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zachary M Ferraro,1 Kaitlin S Boehm,1 Laura M Gaudet,2,3 Kristi B Adamo1,4,5 1Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 2Horizon Health Network, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada; 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; 4School of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, 5Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Introduction: There is discord between the recall of maternity care providers and patients when it comes to discussion of gestational weight gain (GWG) and obesity management. Few women report being advised on GWG, physical activity (PA), and nutrition, yet the majority of health care providers report discussing these topics with patients. We evaluated whether various Canadian maternal health care providers can identify appropriate GWG targets for patients with obesity and determine if providers report counseling on GWG, physical activity, and nutrition. Methods: A valid and reliable e-survey was created using SurveyMonkey software and distributed by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada listserve. A total of 174 health care providers finished the survey. Respondents self-identified as general practitioners, obstetricians, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, midwives, or registered nurses. Results: GWG recommendations between disciplines for all body mass index categories were similar and fell within Health Canada/Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines. Of those who answered this question, 110/160 (68.8%) were able to correctly identify the maximum IOM GWG recommended for patients with obesity, yet midwives tended to recommend 0.5–1 kg more GWG (P = 0.05). PA counseling during pregnancy differed between disciplines (P < 0.01), as did nutrition counseling during pregnancy (P < 0.05). Conclusion: In contrast to patient reports, the majority of health care providers document counseling on GWG, PA, and nutrition and appropriately identify GWG limits for obese patients. However, the content and quality of the discourse between patient and provider warrants further investigation. Keywords: gestational weight gain, nutrition, obesity, physical activity, pregnancy

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→