Ottawa nutritional guide intervention for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are frequent complaints during pregnancy, which can be accompanied by marital discord and sexual dissatisfaction, in addition to the hospitalization of pregnant women. Given the potential side effects of pharmaceutical treatments on both the mother and fetus, many women prefer non-pharmacological interventions. This study will assess the impact of an educational program based on the Ottawa Nutritional Guide on symptoms in pregnant women and explore sexual satisfaction as a secondary outcome. METHODS: In this randomized controlled clinical trial, a total of 60 pregnant women aged between 15 and 45 years, who scored 3-16 on the Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting and Retching (RINVR), will be selected via convenience sampling. They will be then divided into two intervention and control groups through block randomization. Data will be collected using a demographic and obstetric checklist, the RINVR, and the Hudson's Index of Sexual Satisfaction (ISS). The intervention group will be received training on the Ottawa Nutritional Guide in two 60-min sessions, conducted in groups of two to five people. The control group, on the other hand, received routine care. The collected data will be analyzed using SPSS Version 22. DISCUSSION: Several studies have reported the effectiveness of the Ottawa Nutritional Guide in managing nausea and vomiting in pregnant women, as well as its positive impact on their quality of life and marital satisfaction. However, further research is required to validate these findings before considering it as a potential alternative to pharmaceutical methods during pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20180218038783N5, registered 03/09/2023).
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".