Expectant Parents’ Understanding of the Implications and Management of Fever in the Neonate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We estimated the extent to which Canadian expectant parents would seek medical care in a febrile neonate (age 30 days or less). We also evaluated expectant parents' knowledge of signs and symptoms of fever in a neonate, and explored the actions Canadian expectant parents would take to optimize the health of their child. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a sample of expectant parents from a large urban center in Canada. We recruited participants from waiting rooms in an obstetrical ultrasound clinic located in an urban tertiary care hospital in Montreal, Canada. We asked participants nine questions about fever in neonates including if, and how, they would seek care for their neonate if they suspected he/she were febrile. RESULTS: Among the 355 respondents, (response rate 87%) we found that 75% of parents reported that they would take their febrile neonate for immediate medical assessment, with nearly one fifth of the sample reporting that they would not seek medical care. We found no significant associations between the choice to seek medical care and expectant parents socio-demographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Despite universal access to high quality health care in Canada, our study highlights concerning gaps in the knowledge of the care of the febrile infant in one fifth of expectant parents. Physicians and health providers should strive to provide early education to expectant parents about how to recognize signs of fever in the neonate and how best to seek medical care. This may improve neonatal health outcomes in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".