Kangaroo Mother Care, home environment and father involvement in the first year of life: a randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study tested the hypothesis that Kangaroo Mother Care creates a climate in the family, which enhances infants' performance on the developmental quotient scale. SETTING: The largest social security hospital in Colombia with a neonatal intensive care unit. SUBJECTS: At 12 months of corrected age, 194 families in the Kangaroo Mother Care group and 144 families in the Traditional Care group were available for analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Infants were kept 24 h/day in an upright position, in skin-to-skin contact until it was no longer tolerated by the infants. Babies in the Traditional Care were kept in incubators on the Minimal Care Unit until they satisfied the usual discharge criteria. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME), Father Involvement and Developmental Quotient (Griffiths) scores. RESULTS: 1) Kangaroo mothers created a more stimulating context and a better caregiving environment than mothers in the Traditional Care group; 2) this environment was positively correlated to father involvement and 3) the family environment of male infants was most improved by Kangaroo Mother Care. CONCLUSION: Kangaroo Mother Care has a positive impact on home environment. The results also suggest, first, that both parents should be involved as direct caregivers in the Kangaroo Mother Care procedure and secondly, that this intervention should be directed more specifically at infants who are more at risk at birth. The Kangaroo Mother Care intervention could be an excellent means to ensure parents' mature involvement in the future of their children.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".