Mother–Infant Skin-to-Skin Contact: Short‐ and Long-Term Effects for Mothers and Their Children Born Full-Term
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This brief report reviews findings from a longitudinal study of skin-to-skin contact (SSC) with mothers and full-term infants and a follow-up study of these dyads when the children were 9 years. Findings infer the positive influence of SSC on mother-child interactions in infancy and into children's middle childhood. Mothers and infants in SSC and control groups were seen when infants were 1 week, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months. SSC group mothers reported fewer depressive symptoms in infants' early weeks and had a greater reduction in salivary cortisol, a physiological stress indicator, in infants' first month (Bigelow et al., 2012). SSC group mothers who initially chose to breastfeed continued to breastfeed their infants throughout the 3 months, whereas breastfeeding mothers in the control group declined over the visits (Bigelow et al., 2014). When engaged in the Still Face Task with their mothers, SSC group infants showed the still face effect with their affect at 1 month, a month before the control group infants did so (Bigelow and Power, 2012). At 3 months, SSC group infants were social bidding to their mothers during the still face phase. When the children were 9 years, the mother-child dyads engaged in conversations about the children's remembered emotional events (Bigelow et al., 2018). Mother-child dyads who had been in the SSC group showed more engagement and reciprocity in the conversations than mother-child dyads who had been in the control group. Oxytocin, which is induced by SSC, is hypothesized to be an underlying factor that helped the mother-infant relationship have a positive trajectory with long-term benefits.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".