Valoración de las madres acerca de las recomendaciones para el cuidado del recién nacido al momento del alta hospitalaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is common for pediatricians to provide parents with information on how to look after their newborn baby at the time of discharge from the hospital. The objectives of this study are to determine the level of satisfaction regarding such information, to be aware of what additional information parents would have liked to receive, and to establish which factors may impact any additional information request. POPULATION AND METHODS: Descriptive study evaluating the opinion of women at 5-15 days post- partum regarding such information. RESULTS: A hundred and seventy-six surveys were collected. Of these, 68.8% respondents had attended childbirth classes. Sixty-one point four percent referred to have looked for advice on the newborn infant care, mostly on the Internet and in books. Seventy-four point four percent considered that the information provided sufficed. Most commonly, information was requested on breastfeeding (33.3%), bottle feeding (20.0%), and umbilical cord care (11.1%). Mothers who requested more information attended childbirth classes more frequently (significant) and searched for information during pregnancy (not significant). In addition, this group significantly assigned a lower score to the opportunity to ask questions and the level of trust on the pediatrician. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal satisfaction regarding the information provided is adequate; and most mothers do not request additional information. The topic on which they most frequently request additional information is breastfeeding. The decision to request information does not depend on maternal age, maternal education, employment condition, or having other children. Likewise, mothers have questions that are not satisfactorily answered during childbirth classes.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".