Paraprofessional Support for Pregnant & Parenting Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review evidence regarding the role of paraprofessional support in improving maternal and infant outcomes in pregnant and parenting women. Although support provided by significant others (social support), by professionals, and by paraprofessionals are frequently considered together in literature reviews, this is inappropriate because the components of the support in each case differ. DATA SOURCES: Data were limited to published studies. Searches of computerized databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsychLit, Social sciences abstracts, Social sciences citation, and Social work abstracts), hand searches of journals, and backward searches from reference lists of studies were conducted. Nursing, medicine, psychology, public health, sociology, and social work literatures were searched. STUDY SELECTION: The studies included had statistically significant outcomes of paraprofessional support to pregnant and parenting women. Studies were published in 1985 or later, were conducted in the United States or Canada, and included maternal and/or infant outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from each study concerning the theoretical framework, design, sample, measuring instruments, interventions, and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Programs providing paraprofessional support to childbearing women are clearly providing an important service, but empirical evidence is not adequate to determine which specific paraprofessional program works for a specific population of women to achieve the best long-term outcomes for both women and children. Although proponents of paraprofessional support programs for pregnant and parenting women have reported some successes, more data are needed. Researchers should continue to conduct well-designed and controlled studies to compare outcomes from the three types of support. Nurses in practice should build on services provided by paraprofessionals in order to meet women's need for support and to achieve desired outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".