Supporting caregivers of children born prematurely in the development of language: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infants born prematurely can display impairments that negatively impact the early years of their development. Compared to their peers born at term, preterm children have higher risks of cerebral palsy, sensory deficits, learning disabilities, cognitive and language deficits, as well as difficulties related to attention and behaviour. Following discharge, parents of preterm children are often supported through neonatal follow-up programs or by community health care practitioners. Through assessment and consultation, professionals foster parental resilience by teaching them about their child's development. Research shows a large volume of literature on improving outcomes for preterm infants, but less attention has been given to the impact and potential importance of education of parents regarding the care they provide from the home. OBJECTIVE: A scoping review was completed to determine the best practices for early intervention in premature children regarding the development of language skills during the preschool years. METHODS: The review followed the guidelines for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: Four general themes emerged from the review and included the importance of providing (1) parental training in the care of an infant born prematurely during neonatal intensive care unit stay; (2) education on the development of language and the importance of parental responsiveness; (3) provision of activities to support child language learning; and (4) overall and ongoing monitoring and support by qualified health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions drawn will provide guidance to health care professionals regarding the education of parents on best practices for stimulating language development in their child.
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 | 0.011 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".