Neonatal outcomes of pregnant women attending integrated and standard substance use treatment programs in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Substance use in pregnancy raises concern given its potential teratogenic effects. Given the unique needs of parenting people and the potential impact for developing children, specialized substance use treatment programs are increasingly being implemented for this population. Substance use treatment is associated with more positive neonatal outcomes compared with no treatment, however treatment models vary limiting our understanding of key treatment components/modelsFew studies have explored the influence of treatment model type (i.e., integrated treatments designed for pregnant clients compared with standard treatment models) and no studies have examined the influence of treatment model on neonatal outcomes using Canadian data. METHOD: We conducted a population-based cohort study of clients who were pregnant when initiating integrated (n = 564) and standard (n = 320) substance use treatment programs in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Neonatal outcomes did not significantly differ by treatment type (integrated or standard), with rates of adverse neonatal outcomes higher than published rates for the general population, despite receipt of adequate levels of prenatal care. While this suggests no significant impact of treatment, it is notable that as a group, clients engaged in integrated treatment presented with more risk factors for adverse neonatal outcomes than those in standard treatment. While we controlled for these risks in our analyses, this may have obscured their influence in relation to treatment type. CONCLUSION: Findings underscore the need for more nuanced research that considers the influence of client factors in interaction with treatment type. Pregnant clients engaged in any form of substance use treatment are at higher risk of having children who experience adverse neonatal outcomes. This underscores the urgent need for further investment in services and research to support maternal and neonatal health before and during pregnancy, as well as long-term service models that support women and children beyond the perinatal and early childhood periods.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".