MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1443643747 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000198

Support during pregnancy for women at increased risk of low birthweight babies

2003· review· en· W1443643747 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen Hodnett, Suzanne Fredericks

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyChildbirthSocial supportPsychosocialFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Studies consistently show a relationship between social disadvantage and low birthweight. Many countries have programs offering special assistance to women thought to be at risk for giving birth to a low birthweight infant. These programs may include advice and counselling (about nutrition, rest, stress management, alcohol and recreational drug use), tangible assistance (eg transportation to clinic appointments, help with household responsibilities), and emotional support. The programs may be delivered by multidisciplinary teams of health professionals, by specially trained lay workers, or by a combination of lay and professional workers. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of programs offering additional social support for pregnant women who are believed to be at risk for giving birth to preterm or low birthweight babies. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (30 January 2003). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of additional support during at-risk pregnancy by either a professional (social worker, midwife, or nurse) or specially trained lay person, compared to routine care. Additional support was defined as some form of emotional support (eg counselling, reassurance, sympathetic listening) and information/advice, either in home visits or during clinic appointments, and could include tangible assistance (eg transportation to clinic appointments, assistance with the care of other children at home). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Double data entry was performed. Study authors were contacted to request additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials involving 13,651 women were included. The trials were generally of good to excellent quality, although 3 used an allocation method likely to introduce bias. Programs offering additional social support for at-risk pregnant women were not associated with improvements in any perinatal outcomes, but there was a reduction in the likelihood of caesarean birth and an increased likelihood of elective termination of pregnancy. Some improvements in immediate maternal psychosocial outcomes were found in individual trials. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women need the support of caring family members, friends, and health professionals. While programs which offer additional support during pregnancy are unlikely to prevent the pregnancy from resulting in a low birthweight or preterm baby, they may be helpful in reducing the likelihood of caesarean birth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0290.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations111
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207