Building Healthy Babies: A Mixed-Methods Needs Assessment for a Pre-Conception Program in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to gather Ontario clinicians' and public members' views on the design of a pre-conception patient education program. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, online surveys comprised of rank order, multiple choice, and short answer questions were completed by clinicians and public members. Semi-structured focus groups consisting of 2-6 participants each were then held via videoconference. Demographic variables and survey responses were analyzed quantitatively using descriptive and summary statistics. Descriptive thematic qualitative analysis using the constant comparative method of grounded theory was completed on each transcript to generate themes. RESULTS: A total of 168 public members and 43 clinicians in Ontario completed surveys, while 11 clinicians and 11 public members participated in the focus groups. A pre-conception program in Ontario was felt to be important. An individual appointment with a primary care provider was the favoured program format per survey responses, whereas a virtual format with an interactive component was preferred among focus group participants. Important topics to include were pre-conception health (infertility, genetic screening, folic acid), prenatal and postpartum counselling (diet, activity, substance use, prenatal care, postpartum course), and medical optimization in pregnancy (high-risk medical conditions, medications, mental health). Both groups emphasized the need to consider accommodations for marginalized populations and various cultures and languages. CONCLUSION: A standardized pre-conception patient education program is felt to be of high value by Ontario clinicians and public members. A pre-conception program may help improve obstetrical outcomes and decrease rates of major congenital anomalies in Ontario.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".