Strengthening New Fathers' Skills in Interaction With Their 5‐Month‐Old Infants: Who Benefits From a Brief Intervention?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the utility of a parenting education program for fathers of infants, and to determine which fathers benefited. DESIGN: Fathers' perceptions of the program's utility were captured in a brief, structured interview. Using secondary data analysis, pretest/posttest father-infant interaction scores of fathers who improved were compared with those of fathers who did not. Demographic predictors of improvement were identified using multiple regression. SAMPLE: Community sample of 81 adult, English-speaking, primarily European Canadian, first-time fathers of 5-month-old infants, who participated in the intervention group of a randomized controlled trial. INTERVENTION: When infants were 5 and 6 months old, videotaped self-modeling and positive feedback about father-infant interaction were provided by specially trained nurses. MEASUREMENTS: Father-infant interaction was assessed at baseline (5 months) and outcome (8 months) using the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale. RESULTS: Fathers found the program useful, indicating that their needs for educational programs are different from mothers. Controlling for baseline interactions, demographic variables did not significantly predict fathers' outcome interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The program may prove useful in public health settings where implementing programs for fathers of infants is a priority. Future research needs to explore other predictors to identify fathers who will benefit from the program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".