Systematic mixed‐study review of nonpharmacological management of neonatal abstinence syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neonatal abstinence syndrome is a multisystem disorder resulting from exposure to maternal addictive substance use in pregnancy. Withdrawal is characterized by neonatal tremors, feeding difficulties, and sleep disruption. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the nonpharmacological management of infants at risk of neonatal abstinence syndrome after prenatal exposure. METHODS: A systematic mixed-study review was conducted. A search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, AMED, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and Web of Science was performed for relevant articles published between January 2007 and June 2018. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted and thematic analysis undertaken. The findings were synthesized as a narrative summary. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review, of which nine were quality improvement initiatives and five explored complementary therapies. The most common components of nonpharmacological management were consolation therapy and rooming-in of mother and baby. Implementation strategies incorporated family integrated care and practitioner training in the evaluation of neonatal withdrawal. When nonpharmacological management was applied, there was a reduction in the need for pharmacotherapy and a shorter hospital stay for newborns. Potential barriers to effective management included unreliable assessment tools, judgmental practitioner attitudes, and limited breastfeeding promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Providing and optimizing nonpharmacological management for the infant at risk of neonatal abstinence syndrome improves outcomes by reducing their length of hospital stay and the need for pharmacotherapy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".