Social and Professional Support for Pregnant and Parenting Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A literature review to contrast the role of social and professional support in improving maternal and infant outcomes in pregnant and parenting women. In addition, recommendations are made for future research and policy and program development concerning support needed by pregnant and parenting women. DATA SOURCES: Data were limited to published studies. Searches of computerized databases, 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 (CINAHL, Medline, PsychLit, Social Sciences Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation, and Social Work Abstracts). STUDY SELECTION: The studies focused on outcomes of social support and professional support to pregnant and parenting women. The samples of the studies included pregnant women and parenting women up to 2 years postpartum. Studies reviewed were conducted in the United States or Canada and included maternal and/or infant outcomes. All ages and races of pregnant and parenting women were considered. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from each study concerning the theoretical framework, variables, sample, design, measuring instruments, interventions, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Social support outcomes were summarized in paragraphs while a table was used to summarize professional support intervention outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes associated with specific support interventions should be clearly identified, informed by theory, and include assisting the pregnant and parenting woman to improve her social support.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".