Current Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention Practices among Canadian Midwives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alcohol use during pregnancy is associated with multiple adverse health outcomes for the woman and fetus, including stillbirth, miscarriage, low birth weight, and risk of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). Midwives are uniquely situated to routinely engage in conversations about alcohol use with women that are strength based, health promoting, and focused on empowerment. This report is a secondary analysis of the midwifery responses (n = 196) from a larger data set of health care providers collected by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) in an online survey in October and November 2017. The aim of the survey was to identify current knowledge, attitudes, practices, and beliefs among Canadian health care providers on screening, brief intervention, and referral (SBIR) for women’s alcohol use. Most midwives (97%) ask women about alcohol use during pregnancy; however, only about half practice brief intervention (57%). Perceived confidence in conducting brief intervention was positively associated with its practice (t [193] = 5.31, p < .0001). Improving skills and confidence to provide brief support about alcohol use during pregnancy using evidence-informed approaches will strengthen this practice in Canada. This article has been peer reviewed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".