Type and Timing of Services Following Postnatal Discharge: Do They Make a Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The debate continues as to what constitutes an adequate postnatal follow-up after an early hospital discharge. The main objective of this study was to determine whether the type and timing of postnatal services were associated with mothers' and newborns' health, breastfeeding duration, and maternal assessment of the delay and usefulness of the services they received after discharge. METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted one month after a vaginal, uncomplicated delivery by 2,583 mothers who had given birth in five health regions of the Province of Québec, between 1999 and 2003. RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was 72.1%. Virtually all the newborns (98.1%) had at least one routine contact with a health professional after discharge. Within 72 hours of discharge, 26.0% of the mothers received only a telephone call, 44.3% were visited by a public health nurse, 11.1% of the babies were examined by a physician and 49.5% were examined by a nurse or a physician. Newborns who had a first contact with a health professional within 72 hours of hospital discharge were less likely to have been readmitted to the hospital (adjusted Odds Ratio 0.45; 95% CI 0.21-0.97), while their mothers were less likely to have signs of moderate to severe depression at one month postpartum (adjusted Odds Ratio 0.60; 95% CI 0.45-0.79). The sooner the telephone call and the home visit were received the more likely the women were to have found that the services were useful. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the timing, more than the type, of postnatal follow-up after an early obstetrical discharge could make a difference.
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 | 0.008 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".