A Survey of Current Practices and Factors Associated with Health Care Professionals' Use of Probiotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probiotics are live microorganisms which confer a health benefit to the host. The literature strongly supports the benefits of probiotic therapy in preterm infant populations, specifically in the prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and mortality. To this end, probiotics are routinely given to premature infants in several European and Asian countries. However, in spite of the current evidence and neonatal feeding practices elsewhere, probiotic supplements are rarely prescribed in nurseries in North America. Furthermore, there is little or no literature on factors which affect clinical decision-making regarding probiotic supplementation. The study implemented a cross-sectional descriptive survey. The purpose of this study was to: (i) describe current practices involving probiotic supplementation of preterm infant enteral feeds; and (ii) identify factors that affect willingness of health care professionals to support the use of probiotics. Probiotic use was examined in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) in Canada and the United States using two cross-sectional internet-based surveys. Survey #1 focused on current practices and targeted neonatologists who serve as clinical directors or department heads. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics. Survey #2 addressed factors that affect probiotic supplementation of preterm infant feedings, and had two versions: the first version targeted physicians and nurse practitioners whereas version 2 targeted neonatal nurses. The development of Survey #2 was guided by the Theoretical Domain Framework which evaluates factors which may affect the willingness of Health Care Professionals to support the use of probiotics in neonatal practice. The results of survey #2 were analysed using Chi-Square, Fisher’s Exact Test, and One-Way ANOVA. The results of the study indicated that only a small proportion of NICUs are administering probiotics to preterm infants and practices vary. The most significant factors influencing clinical decision-making regarding probiotic supplementation were knowledge about probiotics and the evidence, perceptions about the evidence and safety of probiotics, and knowledge about probiotics and clinical guidelines. Improving knowledge about probiotics, addressing safety issues of probiotics products, expanding the evidence base, and developing clinical guidelines may contribute to increased use of probiotics in NICUs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".