Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29138209›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Healthcare providers' gestational weight gain counselling practises and the influence of knowledge and attitudes: a cross-sectional mixed methods study.

Jill Morris, Hara Nikolopoulos, Tanya Berry, Venu Jain, Michael Vallis, Helena Piccinini-Vallis, Rhonda C Bell, ENRICH team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jill MorrisDepartment of Agricultural Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Hara NikolopoulosDepartment of Agricultural Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Tanya BerryFaculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Venu JainDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Michael VallisDepartment of Family Medicine, Behaviour Change Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Helena Piccinini-VallisDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Rhonda C BellDepartment of Agricultural Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4298-9641
ENRICH team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand current gestational weight gain (GWG) counselling practices of healthcare providers, and the relationships between practices, knowledge and attitudes.

designConcurrent mixed methods with data integration: cross-sectional survey and semistructured interviews.

participantsPrenatal healthcare providers in Canada: general practitioners, obstetricians, midwives, nurse practitioners and registered nurses in primary care settings.

resultsTypically, GWG information was provided early in pregnancy, but not discussed again unless there was a concern. Few routinely provided women with individualised GWG advice (21%), rate of GWG (16%) or discussed the risks of inappropriate GWG to mother and baby (20% and 19%). More routinely discussed physical activity (46%) and food requirements (28%); midwives did these two activities more frequently than all other disciplines (P<0.001). Midwives interviewed noted a focus on overall wellness instead of weight, and had longer appointment times which allowed them to provide more in-depth counselling. Regression results identified that the higher priority level that healthcare providers place on GWG, the more likely they were to report providing GWG advice and discussing risks of GWG outside recommendations (β=0.71, P<0.001) and discussing physical activity and food requirements (β=0.341, P<0.001). Interview data linked the priority level of GWG to length of appointments, financial compensation methods for healthcare providers and the midwifery versus medical model of care.

conclusionsInterventions for healthcare providers to enhance GWG counselling practices should consider the range of factors that influence the priority level healthcare providers place on GWG counselling.

Indexed as

Directive CounselingGeneral PracticeHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMidwiferyObstetricsWeight GainAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesDiet, HealthyExerciseFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicNurse PractitionersPatient Education as TopicPractice Patterns, Nurses'counsellinggestational weight gainhealth care providerspregnancy

Identifiers

PMID29138209
PMCPMC5695303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.