MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379054973 · doi:10.2196/43962

Frequency of Prenatal Care Visits: Protocol to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Prenatal Care Schedules

2023· article· en· W4379054973 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Turrentine, Buu-Hac Nguyen, Beth Choby, Susan Kendig, Tekoa L. King, Milton Kotelchuck, Tiffany A. Moore Simas, Sindhu K. Srinivas, Christopher M. Zahn, Alex Peahl

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrenatal careMedicineDelphi methodPsychological interventionHealth careTelemedicineFamily medicineNursingPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prenatal care, one of the most common preventive care services in the United States, endeavors to improve pregnancy outcomes through evidence-based screenings and interventions. Despite the prevalence of prenatal care and its importance to maternal and infant health, there are several debates about the best methods of prenatal care delivery, including the most appropriate schedule frequency and content of prenatal visits. Current US national guidelines recommend that low-risk individuals receive a standard schedule of 12 to 14 in-office visits, a care delivery model that has remained unchanged for almost a century. OBJECTIVE: In early 2020, to mitigate individuals' exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, prenatal care providers implemented new paradigms that altered the schedule frequency, interval, and modality (eg, telemedicine) of how prenatal care services were offered. In this paper, we describe the development of a core outcome set (COS) that can be used to evaluate the effect of the frequency of prenatal care schedules on maternal and infant outcomes. METHODS: We will systematically review the literature to identify previously reported outcomes important to individuals who receive prenatal care and the people who care for them. Stakeholders with expertise in prenatal care delivery (ie, patients or family members, health care providers, and public health professionals and policy makers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in a web-based survey using a 3-round Delphi process. A digital consensus meeting will be held for a group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final COS. RESULTS: The Delphi survey was initiated in July 2022 with invited 71 stakeholders. A digital consensus conference was conducted on October 11, 2022. Data are currently under analysis with plans to submit them in a subsequent manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: More research about the optimal schedule frequency and modality for prenatal care delivery is needed. Standardizing outcomes that are measured and reported in evaluations of the recommended prenatal care schedules will assist evidence synthesis and results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Overall, this COS will expand the consistency and patient-centeredness of reported outcomes for various prenatal care delivery schedules and modalities, hopefully improving the overall efficacy of recommended care delivery for pregnant people and their families. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43962.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.013

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 head0.620
GPT teacher head0.684
Teacher spread0.064 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207