MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3081201429 · doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09317-w

Community-based cluster randomized controlled trial: empowering households to identify and provide appropriate care for low-birthweight newborns in Nepal

2020· article· en· W3081201429 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Hodgins, Binamra Rajbhandari, Deepak Joshi, Bharat Ban, Subarna K. Khatry, Luke C. Mullany

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsBiostatisticsMedicinePublic healthEnvironmental healthCluster (spacecraft)EpidemiologyCluster randomised controlled trialRandomized controlled trialPediatricsNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Most newborn deaths occur among those of low birthweight (LBWt), due to prematurity &/or impaired fetal growth. Simple practices can substantially mitigate this risk. In low-income country settings where many births occur at home, strategies are needed that empower mothers to determine if their babies are at higher risk and, if so, to take measures to reduce risk. Earlier studies suggest that foot-length may be a good proxy for birthweight. An earlier Nepal study found a 6.9 cm cut-off performed relatively well, differentiating normal from low birthweight. METHODS: Community-based, cluster-randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: to determine whether family-administered screening, associated with targeted messages improves care practices known to mitigate LBWt-associated risks. PARTICIPANTS: women participating in a parent trial in rural Nepal, recruited late in pregnancy. Women were given a 6.9 cm card to assess whether the baby's foot is small; if so, to call a number on the card for advice. Follow-up visits were made over the 2 weeks following the birth, assessing for 2 behavioral outcomes: reported skin-to-skin thermal care, and care-seeking outside the home; assessed restricting to low birthweight (using 2 cutoffs: 2500 g and 2000 g). Randomization: 17 clusters intervention, 17 control. The study also documented performance along the presumed causal chain from intervention through behavioral impact. RESULTS: 2022 intervention, 2432 control. Intervention arm: 519 had birthweight < 2500 g (vs. 663 among controls), of which 503 were available for analysis (vs. 649 among controls). No significant difference found on care-seeking; for those < 2500 g RR 1.13 (95%CI: 0.97-1.131). A higher proportion of those in the intervention arm reported skin-to-skin thermal care than among controls; for those < 2500 g RR 2.50 (95%CI: 2.01-3.1). However, process measures suggest this apparent effect cannot be attributed to the intervention; the card performed poorly as a proxy for LBWt, misclassifying 84.5% of those < 2000 as normal weight. CONCLUSIONS: Although the trial found an apparent effect on one of the behavioral outcomes, this cannot be attributed to the intervention; most likely it was a result of pure chance. Other approaches are needed for identifying small, at-risk babies in such settings, and targeting them for appropriate care messaging. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02802332 , registered 6/16/2016.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→