MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387828684 · doi:10.2196/50867

Self-Reported Medication Use Across Racial and Rural or Urban Subgroups of People Who Are Pregnant in the United States: Decentralized App-Based Cohort Study

2023· article· en· W4387828684 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeff Pawelek, Hansa Bhargava, Arij Faksh, Jennifer M. Radin

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineEthnic groupPrenatal carePopulationFamily medicineMedical prescriptionHealth equityCohort studyPregnancyGerontologyEnvironmental healthPublic healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Maternal health outcomes have been underresearched due to people who are pregnant being underrepresented or excluded from studies based on their status as a vulnerable study population. Based on the available evidence, Black people who are pregnant have dramatically higher maternal morbidity and mortality rates compared to other racial and ethnic groups. However, insights into prenatal care-including the use of medications, immunizations, and prenatal vitamins-are not well understood for pregnant populations, particularly those that are underrepresented in biomedical research. Medication use has been particularly understudied in people who are pregnant; even though it has been shown that up to 95% of people who are pregnant take at least 1 or more medications. Understanding gaps in use could help identify ways to reduce maternal disparities and optimize maternal health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize and compare the use of prenatal vitamins, immunizations, and commonly used over-the-counter and prescription medications among people who are pregnant, those self-identifying as Black versus non-Black, and those living in rural versus urban regions in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, decentralized study of 4130 pregnant study participants who answered survey questionnaires using a mobile research app that was only available on iOS (Apple Inc) devices. All people who were pregnant, living in the United States, and comfortable with reading and writing in English were eligible. The study was conducted in a decentralized fashion with the use of a research app to facilitate enrollment using an eConsent and self-reported data collection. RESULTS: Within the study population, the use of prenatal vitamins, antiemetics, antidepressants, and pain medication varied significantly among different subpopulations underrepresented in biomedical research. Black participants reported significantly lower frequencies of prenatal vitamin use compared to non-Black participants (P<.001). The frequency of participants who were currently receiving treatment for anxiety and depression was also lower among Black and rural groups compared to their non-Black and urban counterparts, respectively. There was significantly lower use of antidepressants (P=.002) and antiemetics (P=.02) among Black compared to non-Black participants. While prenatal vitamin use was lower among participants in rural areas, the difference between rural and urban groups did not reach statistical significance (P=.08). There were no significant differences in vaccine uptake for influenza or tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (TDaP) across race, ethnicity, rural, or urban status. CONCLUSIONS: A prospective, decentralized app-based study demonstrated significantly lower use of prenatal vitamins, antiemetics, and antidepressants among Black pregnant participants. Additionally, significantly fewer Black and rural participants reported receiving treatment for anxiety and depression during pregnancy. Future research dedicated to identifying the root mechanisms of these differences can help improve maternal health outcomes, specifically for diverse communities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207