Randomized Trial of Postpartum Care After Hospital Discharge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Harmful effects of short postpartum hospital stays include dehydration and malnutrition of breastfed infants. These may be prevented by adequate breastfeeding frequency; however, rigorous research to determine the relative effectiveness of various follow-up strategies in supporting breastfeeding frequency is absent. This study addressed the question, "Is there a difference in breastfeeding frequency or infant weight gain for singleton infants discharged within 36 hours' postpartum who received either community nurse (home visit) or hospital nurse (clinic) follow-up?" METHODS: A randomized, controlled trial was conducted at a university teaching hospital (3700 births/y) and affiliated community health centers. A consecutive sample of 586 healthy mother-infant pairs were recruited from January 1997 to September 1998 before discharge; 513 (87.5%) contributed data on 1 or more outcomes. Forty-eight-hour postpartum telephone contact and day 3 nurse contact in the home (experimental) or at the hospital (control) were provided. The main outcomes measured were breastfeeding frequency and infant weight gain assessed at 2 weeks' postpartum by maternal diary and weight at home by research assistants, masked to group allocation. RESULTS: No clinically important or statistically significant group differences were found in daily breastfeeding frequency (mean difference experimental minus control = 0.1 feeds [95% confidence interval: -0.1-0.3]) or daily rate of infant weight gain (-1.1 g [-2.5-0.3]) based on intention-to-treat analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up by nurses after short postpartum hospital stays, in either the home or a hospital-based clinic, of healthy infants discharged at <36 hours seems associated with satisfactory infant breastfeeding outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".