MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399289012 · doi:10.1186/s12884-024-06591-z

‘It’s not me, it’s them’ – a report describing the weight-related attitudes towards obesity in pregnancy among maternal healthcare providers

2024· article· en· W4399289012 on OpenAlexaffabout
Taniya S. Nagpal, Kirina Angrish, Emily Bonisteel, Rebecca M. Puhl, Zachary M. Ferraro, Niyati Malkani, Caroline LeJour, Kristi B. Adamo

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of SaskatchewanBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeight stigmaObesityPregnancyStigma (botany)Psychological interventionFamily medicineReproductive medicineHealth careLikert scaleCross-sectional studyNursingOverweightPsychiatryPsychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Occurrences of weight stigma have been documented in prenatal clinical settings from the perspective of pregnant patients, however little is known from the viewpoint of healthcare providers themselves. Reported experiences of weight stigma caused by maternal healthcare providers may be due to negative attitudes towards obesity in pregnancy and a lack of obesity specific education. The objective of this study was to assess weight-related attitudes and assumptions towards obesity in pregnancy among maternal healthcare providers in order to inform future interventions to mitigate weight stigma in prenatal clinical settings. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered online for maternal healthcare providers in Canada that assessed weight-related attitudes and assumptions towards lifestyle behaviours in pregnancy for patients who have obesity. Participants indicated their level of agreement on a 5-point likert scale, and mean scores were calculated with higher scores indicating poorer attitudes. Participants reported whether they had observed weight stigma occur in clinical settings. Finally, participants were asked whether or not they had received obesity-specific training, and attitude scores were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Seventy-two maternal healthcare providers (midwives, OBGYNs, residents, perinatal nurses, and family physicians) completed the survey, and 79.2% indicated that they had observed pregnant patients with obesity experience weight stigma in a clinical setting. Those who had obesity training perceived that their peers had poorer attitudes (3.7 ± 0.9) than those without training (3.1 ± 0.7; t(70) = 2.23, p = 0.029, Cohen's d = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Weight stigma occurs in prenatal clinical environments, and this was confirmed by maternal healthcare providers themselves. These findings support advocacy efforts to integrate weight stigma related content and mitigation strategies in medical education for health professionals, including maternal healthcare providers. Future work should include prospective examination of weight related attitudes among maternal healthcare providers and implications of obesity specific education, including strategies on mitigating weight stigma in the delivery of prenatal care.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207