Antenatal Consultation and Postnatal Stress in Mothers of Preterm Neonates (A Two-Center Observational Case–Control Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: During antenatal consultation of women hospitalized for preterm labour information of possible adverse outcomes is provided. This may however create additional maternal stress and raise therefore some ethical concerns. Objective: Aim of present study was to evaluate the influence of antenatal consultation by a neonatologist on maternal stress after delivery of a preterm infant admitted to NICU. Methods: In this study secondary outcome parameters of a prospective two-center pilot observational study were analysed. Mothers of preterm neonates <36 weeks of gestation admitted at two tertiary level Neonatal-Intensive-Care-Units (NICU) were included. Maternal stress was assessed with the Parental-Stress-Scale:NICU (PSS:NICU) within 72 hours after birth. PSS:NICU measures three scales: “relationship and parental role”, “sights and sounds”, and “baby looks and behaves”. Maternal socio-demographic data were collected by questionnaire administered at the same time. Mothers who received antenatal neonatal consultation were matched for gestational age and compared to mothers, who had no antenatal consultation by a neonatologist. Results: 46 mothers of preterm neonates were included, 23 mothers in each group. There was no significant difference in socio-demographic data between the two groups regarding neonates and mothers. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding stress scales of “sights and sounds” (2.00 ±0.76 vs. 2.19 ±0.79;p=0.402), “looks and behaves” (2.55 ±0.90 vs. 2.48 ±0.94;p=0.732) and “relationship and parental role” scales (3.28 ±1.23 vs. 3.46 ±1.07;p=0.517). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that antenatal consultation by a neonatologist had no substantial influence on postnatal maternal stress in mothers of preterm neonates admitted to the NICU.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".