Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy Counselling Practices of Antenatal and Postpartum Health Care Providers in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDPs) affect 7% of pregnancies in Canada. Women with HDPs are at higher risk for postpartum development of traditional cardiovascular risk factors, cardiovascular disease, and increased cardiovascular mortality in the short and long term. We sought to understand whether obstetrical care providers were aware of this link and how they communicate this to patients. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we interviewed registered midwives (RMs), family physicians (FPs), and obstetricians (OBs) using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analyses was performed. RESULTS: We interviewed 7 FPs, 6 RMs, and 6 OBs and saturation was reached. Four themes were identified explaining barriers and facilitators to counselling about HDP, caring for patients with HDP, and the role health care providers play when caring for these patients. These included the following: (1) health care professional counselling, (2) transitions of care, (3) HDP care, and (4) role of the OB versus RM versus FP. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to counselling included time limitations, lack of individual specialty knowledge, ownership, competing counselling priorities, and lack of providers to transfer care to in the postpartum. Facilitators included having access to patient education tools and the globally recognized importance of preventing future cardiovascular disease. Access to easily accessible and implementable guidelines was a barrier and facilitator. Therefore, attention should be given to the creation of high-quality, integrated continuing medical education and easily accessible and implementable guidelines. Future work should focus on quality improvement initiatives, with effort paid to improving documentation via standardized forms or electronic medical record templates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".