Including the newborn physical examination in the pre-registration midwifery curriculum: National survey
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
Aims This study aimed to assess the scope of newborn infant physical examination (NIPE) education in programmes of pre-registration midwifery education. Methods An online questionnaire was sent to all lead midwives for education in the UK. Findings are reported in two parts: part A (the current paper) examines the education provision for the inclusion of NIPE in the midwifery curriculum. Part B (a subsequent paper) explores NIPE education as a post-registration module. Findings Of 58 education institutions, 40 (68.9%) completed the questionnaire. A quarter (25.0%) stated that NIPE training is included in their pre-registration midwifery programmes; 37.5% reported plans to implement it within the next 2–5 years and 30.0% had no plans to do so. Benefits for practice partners, commissioners, students and service users were identified. Challenges were noted, particularly in relation to resources and student support in practice. Conclusion Although barriers doubtless exist, the success of the few institutions that have incorporated NIPE into their curricula is evidence that this is not only possible, but has proven benefits.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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