Does Supplementary Prenatal Nursing and Home Visitation Support Improve Resource Use in a Universal Health Care System? A Randomized Controlled Trial in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".