MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3134132852 · doi:10.3390/ijerph18052537

The Effect of a Voice-Centered Psycho-Educational Program on Maternal Self-Efficacy: A Feasibility Study

2021· article· en· W3134132852 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Shoemark, Marie Dahlstrøm, Oscar Bedford, Lauren Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersTemple University
KeywordsBedtimePsychologyAnxietyMoodDevelopmental psychologyScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

, on maternal self-efficacy, mother-infant bonding, and mood/anxiety for community-based mothers. This program centered on maternal voice, timing of interplay, and recognition of infant cues. A convergent parallel mixed-methods design included quantitative measures: the Karitane Parenting Confidence Scale, the Mother-Infant Bonding Scale, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and State & Trait Anxiety Inventory, and a sequential qualitative analysis to elaborate on the quantitative findings. Significant changes on the Karitane Parenting Confidence Scale were found. Qualitative analysis of the participant interviews and reflective diaries from the two weeks following the psycho-educational program confirmed that participation enhanced mothers' ability to understand their infant, to soothe their infant when distressed, to play and to establish an effective bedtime routine. This feasibility study indicated that this is a promising approach to improve early mother-infant interaction and maternal self-efficacy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health→Same topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum→French-language works237,207→