An Opportunity During Antenatal Services to Strengthen Nurturing Care: Global and National Recommendations for Routine Ultrasound Before 24 Weeks Gestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Healthy Pregnancy, Healthy Baby study (HPHB) augments a routine service (pregnancy ultrasound) with information about fetal and infant development and the importance of parent wellbeing and infant care, to assess whether it will improve child development and growth, parent-infant attachment, parental wellbeing and routine clinic attendance. This paper outlines the process of intervention development and implementation in a complex environment with multiple stakeholders. Methods: Study participants were recruited from pregnant women attending fetal ultrasound (US) at Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital (CHBH), Soweto, South Africa. Partners were invited to attend all sessions. The HPHB intervention, a novel combination of a health and a parenting intervention that augments a routine service (US), is being tested through a randomized controlled trial with outcome assessments at 6 weeks and 6 months follow-up. The current study outlines the process of moving from intervention design to full implementation in a high-risk clinical setting. Results: Formative research informed the design and content of the intervention materials. Implementation is monitored through weekly reports and team meetings as well as formal and informal feedback received from staff and participants. Close collaborations with clinicians enhanced recruitment practices and provided clinical oversight of the trial procedures. Ongoing stakeholder engagement informed intervention procedures and strategies to address challenges that arise during implementation. Conclusion: This study emphasizes the importance of dynamic, inclusive and interactive approaches to intervention development and implementation, as well as the purposeful use of varied information from diverse sources in decision-making for effective implementation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".