Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was part of a larger study in which an individual, peer-support intervention for mothers of very preterm infants was evaluated. In the present study, ratings by mothers who received the culturally sensitive intervention were compared with ratings from a control group on their experience of the preterm birth, and the quality of their social support. Additionally, mothers who received the intervention also rated their comfort with social interactions in general, and with their support giver, as well as the qualities (e.g., supportive, friendly) of the support giver. The intervention was delivered in a metropolitan city in Canada with a considerably diverse population, for example, 41% spoke a mother tongue other than one of the two official languages (English and French) and 37% were a visible minority. Mothers with a preterm infant in the neonatal intensive care unit who agreed to participate were matched on language, culture, ethnicity, and characteristics of their infant to a volunteer, trained support giver with experience of preterm birth. Results indicated that the intervention helped mothers to feel more confident in their parenting, understand the medical condition of their infants, and experience greater quality of their listening support than control mothers. Intervention mothers also reported comfort interacting with people in general, and especially with the support giver. This study confirms and extends social support theory: Generic social support may be beneficial for caregivers of ill patients; however, specialized support appears to be particularly important for mothers of very preterm infants. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".