The Power of a Parent's Touch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite strong evidence that skin-to-skin contact and breast-feeding are effective pain-relieving interventions for infants undergoing painful procedures, they remain underutilized in clinical practice. Given the important contribution of parents, there is a need to find innovative ways to assist parents to become actively involved in their infant's care. We developed a YouTube video to disseminate evidence-based information on the effectiveness of skin-to-skin contact and breast-feeding for infant pain management. The 2-minute 39-second video launched on December 2, 2014, and was promoted through Web-based and in-person communication and YouTube advertisements. Data were collected using YouTube analytics and an online survey. Post-18 months from its launch, the video had a reach of 157 938 views from 154 countries, with most viewers watching an average of 73% of the video (1 minute 56 seconds). Parents (n = 32) and healthcare providers (n = 170) completed the survey. Overall, both reported that they liked the video, found it helpful, felt more confident, and were more likely to use skin-to-skin contact (16% and 12%) and breast-feeding (3% and 11%), respectively, during future painful procedures. Despite the high-viewing patterns, alternative methods should be considered to better evaluate the impact on practice change.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".