The Cues and Care Randomized Controlled Trial of a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Intervention: Effects on Maternal Psychological Distress and Mother-Infant Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study tested the efficacy of a brief intervention (Cues program) with mothers of very low birth weight (VLBW <1500 g) infants. The primary hypothesis was that mothers in the Cues program would report lower levels of anxiety compared with mothers in the control group. Secondary hypotheses examined whether Cues mothers would report less stress, depression, and role restriction, and exhibit more sensitive interactive behavior, than control group mothers. METHODS: A total of 121 mothers of VLBW infants were randomly assigned to either the experimental (Cues) intervention or an attention control (Care) condition. The Cues program combined training to reduce anxiety and enhance sensitivity. The control group received general information about infant care. Both programs were initiated during the neonatal intensive care unit stay. Maternal anxiety, stress, depression, and demographic variables were evaluated at baseline, prior to randomization. Postintervention outcomes were assessed during a home visit when the infant was ∼6 to 8 weeks of corrected age. RESULTS: Although mothers in the Cues group demonstrated greater knowledge of the content of the experimental intervention than mothers in the Care group, the groups did not differ in levels of anxiety, depression, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress. They were similar in their reports of parental role restrictions and stress related to the infant's appearance and behavior. Cues and Care group mothers were equally sensitive in interaction with their infants. CONCLUSION: Nonspecific attention was as effective as an early skill-based intervention in reducing maternal anxiety and enhancing sensitive behavior in mothers of VLBW infants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".