A randomized controlled trial of an intervention for infants’ behavioral sleep problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infant behavioral sleep problems are common, with potential negative consequences. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess effects of a sleep intervention comprising a two-hour group teaching session and four support calls over 2 weeks. Our primary outcomes were reduced numbers of nightly wakes or parent report of sleep problem severity. Secondary outcomes included improvement in parental depression, fatigue, sleep, and parent cognitions about infant sleep. METHODS: Two hundred thirty five families of six-to-eight month-old infants were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 117) or to control teaching sessions (n = 118) where parents received instruction on infant safety. Outcome measures were observed at baseline and at 6 weeks post intervention. Nightly observation was based on actigraphy and sleep diaries over six days. Secondary outcomes were derived from the Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Measure, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Maternal (parental) Cognitions about Infant Sleep Questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred eight intervention and 107 control families provided six-week follow-up information with complete actigraphy data for 96 in each group: 96.9% of intervention and 97.9% of control infants had an average of 2 or more nightly wakes, a risk difference of -0.2% (95% CI: -1.32, 0.91). 4% of intervention and 14% of control infants had parent-assessed severe sleep problems: relative risk 0.3, a risk difference of -10% (CI: 0.11, 0.84-16.8 to -2.2). Relative to controls, intervention parents reported improved baseline-adjusted parental depression (CI: -3.7 to -0.4), fatigue (CI: -5.74 to -1.68), sleep quality (CI: -1.5 to -0.2), and sleep cognitions: doubts (CI: -2.0 to -0.6), feeding (CI: - 2.1 to - 0.7), anger (CI: - 1.8 to - 0.4) and setting limits (CI: -3.5 to -1.5). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention improved caregivers' assessments of infant sleep problem severity and parental depression, fatigue, sleep, and sleep cognitions compared with controls. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN42169337 , NCT00877162.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".