MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399859893 · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-19159-5

Exploring online reproductive health promotion in Canada: a focus on behavioral and environmental influences from a sex and gender perspective

2024· article· en· W4399859893 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandra R. Rice, Toluwanimi D. Durowaye, Anne T. M. Konkle, Karen P. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive healthPublic healthHealth promotionGovernment (linguistics)MedicinePregnancyReproductive medicineEnvironmental healthPromotion (chess)Perspective (graphical)NursingPopulationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Reproductive health promotion can enable early mitigation of behavioral and environmental risk factors associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, while optimizing health of women + (all genders that can gestate a fetus) and babies. Although the biological and social influences of partners on pregnancy are well established, it is unknown whether online Canadian government reproductive health promotion also targets men and partners throughout the reproductive lifespan. METHODS: Reproductive health promotion, designed for the general public, was assessed in a multi-jurisdictional sample of Canadian government (federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal) and select non-governmental organization (NGO) websites. For each website, information related to environmental and behavioral influences on reproductive health (preconception, pregnancy, postpartum) was evaluated based on comprehensiveness, audience-specificity, and scientific quality. RESULTS: Government and NGO websites provided sparse reproductive health promotion for partners which was generally limited to preconception behavior topics with little coverage of environmental hazard topics. For women + , environmental and behavioral influences on reproductive health were well promoted for pregnancy, with content gaps for preconception and postpartum stages. CONCLUSION: Although it is well established that partners influence pregnancy outcomes and fetal/infant health, Canadian government website promotion of partner-specific environmental and behavioral risks was limited. Most websites across jurisdictions promoted behavioral influences on pregnancy, however gaps were apparent in the provision of health information related to environmental hazards. As all reproductive stages, including preconception and postpartum, may be susceptible to environmental and behavioral influences, online health promotion should use a sex- and gender-lens to address biological contributions to embryo, fetal and infant development, as well as contributions of partners to the physical and social environments of the home.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207