MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2357780130 · doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2992

Unconditional Prenatal Income Supplement and Birth Outcomes

2016· article· en· W2357780130 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marni Brownell, Mariette Chartier, Nathan Nickel, Dan Château, Patricia J. Martens, Joykrishna Sarkar, Elaine Burland, Douglas P. Jutte, Carole Taylor, Robert Santos, Alan Katz

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingBirth weightGestational ageRelative riskObstetricsPopulationConfoundingPropensity score matchingLow birth weightPrenatal careApgar scorePregnancyDemographyPediatricsConfidence intervalEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Perinatal outcomes have improved in developed countries but remain poor for disadvantaged populations. We examined whether an unconditional income supplement to low-income pregnant women was associated with improved birth outcomes. METHODS: This study included all mother-newborn pairs (2003-2010) in Manitoba, Canada, where the mother received prenatal social assistance, the infant was born in the hospital, and the pair had a risk screen (N = 14 591). Low-income women who received the income supplement (Healthy Baby Prenatal Benefit [HBPB], n = 10 738) were compared with low-income women who did not receive HBPB (n = 3853) on the following factors: low birth weight, preterm, small and large for gestational age, Apgar score, breastfeeding initiation, neonatal readmission, and newborn hospital length of stay (LOS). Covariates from risk screens were used to develop propensity scores and to balance differences between groups in regression models; γ sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess sensitivity to unmeasured confounding. Population-attributable and preventable fractions were calculated. RESULTS: HBPB was associated with reductions in low birth weight (aRR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63-0.81]), preterm births (aRR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.69-0.84]) and small for gestational age births (aRR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.81-0.99]) and increases in breastfeeding (aRR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.09]) and large for gestational age births (aRR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.05-1.23]). For vaginal births, HBPB was associated with shortened LOS (weighted mean, 2.86; P < .0001). Results for breastfeeding, low birth weight, preterm birth, and LOS were robust to unmeasured confounding. Reductions of 21% (95% CI, 13.6-28.3) for low birth weight births and 17.5% (95% CI, 11.2-23.8) for preterm births were associated with HBPB. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of an unconditional prenatal income supplement was associated with positive outcomes. Placing conditions on income supplements may not be necessary to promote prenatal and perinatal health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207