Reporting on Health Care and Social Service Provider Approaches to Promoting Alcohol Abstinence During Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the known detrimental health effects of alcohol use during pregnancy, there are still health care (HCP) and social service providers (SSP) who do not promote complete abstinence. The purpose of this study was to explore the current practices of HCPs and SSPs when discussing alcohol use during pregnancy, and to understand their rationale for their specific recommendations. An online survey was completed by 1123 HCPs (n = 588) and SSPs (n = 535) that asked them to identify their approach to discussing alcohol and pregnancy. Participants had the option to further explain their current recommendations regarding alcohol use during pregnancy in an open-ended format. Open-ended responses were analyzed using a content analysis approach (n = 156). The majority of respondents recommend abstinence (83.9% of HCPs, n = 493; 78.4% of SSPs, n = 419), while 9.8% of HCPs (n = 57) and 2.2% of SSPs (n = 12) responded that low levels of consumption may be acceptable. HCPs may recommend low levels of consumption based on other international guidelines, limited evidence to suggest that one unit of alcohol is harmful, and as a harm reduction strategy. SSPs stated that they refer clients to HCPs for recommendations related to alcohol consumption, and that they prefer to provide information based on public health guidelines. This exploratory work may inform the development of resources to support HCPs and SSPs to recommend abstinence from alcohol throughout gestation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".