MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does Supplementary Prenatal Nursing and Home Visitation Support Improve Resource Use in a Universal Health Care System? A Randomized Controlled Trial in Canada

2006· article· en· W2118883541 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNursingRandomized controlled trialPrenatal careIntervention (counseling)PopulationFamily medicinePovertyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The addition of supplementary prenatal support may improve the health and well-being of high-risk women and families. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to examine the impact of supplementary prenatal care on resource use among a community-based population of pregnant women. METHODS: Pregnant women from three urban maternity clinics were randomized (a) to current standard of physician care, (b) to current standard of care plus consultation with a nurse, or (c) to (b) plus consultation with a home visitor. Participants were 1,352 women who received 3 telephone interviews. The primary outcome was resource use (e.g., attended prenatal classes, used nutritional counseling). RESULTS: Overall, those in the nurse intervention group were more likely to attend an "Early Bird" prenatal class and parenting classes, and to use nutrition counseling and agencies that assist with child care. Women provided with extra nursing and home visitation supports were more likely to use a written resource guide, nutrition counseling, and agencies that assist with child care. Among women at higher risk (e.g., language barriers, young maternal age, low income), the nurse intervention significantly increased use of early prenatal classes, whereas the nurse and home visitor intervention significantly increased use of the written resource guide and nutrition counseling. The intervention substantially increased the amount of information received on numerous pregnancy-related topics but had little impact on resource use for mental health and poverty-related needs. Among those with added support, resource use among low-risk women was generally greater than among high-risk women. CONCLUSIONS: Additional support provided by nurses, or nurses and home visitors, can successfully address informational needs and increase the likelihood that women will use existing community-based resources. This finding was true even for high-risk women, although this intervention did not reduce the difference in resource use between high- and low-risk women.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it