Female Perspectives Regarding Quality of Care and Weight-Related Communication in Obstetrics-Gynecology and Family Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the perspectives of patients with elevated body mass index (BMI) regarding the quality of care, communication, and the clinical office environment provided by obstetrics-gynecology (OBGYN) and family practices (FP) outpatient practices. Methods: A cross-sectional 20-question survey was administered to female patients (≥ 18 years) with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m 2 at academic practices of OBGYN and FP clinics. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were computed to assess differences by specialty. Unadjusted and adjusted ordinal regression analyses were conducted to assess factors associated with patient satisfaction with care. Results: Responses from 330 patients (150 OBGYN and 180 FP) were included. The majority of women were between the ages of 31 and 50 (44.5%), reported BMI with class III obesity category (41.5%), and had a high school diploma or less (67.4%). Regarding clinical environment, a higher proportion of OBGYN patients (36.7% vs. 12.5%, P < 0.001) reported weight scales not being located in a private setting compared with FP patients. A higher proportion of OBGYN patients than FP patients (15.0% vs. 7.9%) felt their physicians were not understanding of what it meant to have overweight/obesity (P = 0.014) and felt their physician was uncomfortable when discussing weight-loss treatments (14.2% vs. 11.7%, P = 0.009). However, a higher proportion of FP patients than OBGYN patients (14.2% vs. 6.2%) were dissatisfied with the overall level of care (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in the quality of treatment, level of courtesy and respect utilized during treatment. Conclusion: Perceptions of weight-related communication and the clinical environment were significantly worse by OBGYN compared to FP patients with elevated BMI. However, satisfaction with overall level of care was significantly higher for OBGYN patients compared to FP patients. This suggests a continued need for training related to weight stigma and best practices for creating a welcoming environment in OBGYN clinics. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2024;13(2):25-34 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo953
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".