Parent Picture-Book Reading to Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit as an Intervention Supporting Parent-Infant Interaction and Later Book Reading
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of a parent book reading intervention in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) on parent-infant interaction and on the incidence of parents reading to their infants 3 months post-NICU discharge. METHODS: A nonrandomized, participant blinded intervention study using a historical control group (CG) was conducted. The intervention group (IG: n = 59) consisted of parents of infants admitted to the NICU after the introduction of the parent reading program. The CG (n = 57) consisted of parents of infants discharged from the NICU in the 3-month period before the introduction of the reading program. Questionnaires were mailed to participants 3 months after their infant's discharge and completed verbally, over the telephone. Groups were compared on parenting activities and reading. In addition, a thematic analysis of qualitative descriptive data provided insight into the parents' experiences with reading to their infants. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of IG parents reported that reading helped them feel closer to their baby, and 86% reported it was enjoyable. Parents reported an increased sense of control and normalcy and increased intimacy with their infant. Twice as many parents in the IG reported reading 3 or more times a week to their infants (55.9% IG; 23.3% CG). CONCLUSION: Study results support the use of a parent book-reading intervention in the NICU to enhance parent-infant interactions and promote reading.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it