Parent priorities for research and communication concerning childhood outcomes following preterm birth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Background:</ns3:bold> Children born preterm (before 37 weeks of gestation) are at risk for several adverse childhood outcomes. Parent priorities for research into these outcomes, and preferences for receiving information about these risks, have not previously been established. Here we report the results of an online survey designed to understand parent priorities for research and their preferences for receiving information about childhood outcomes. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Methods:</ns3:bold> An online survey was circulated through social media and was completed by 148 parents of preterm children between the ages of 0 and 12 years from around the United Kingdom (UK). Survey questions were in the form of rating scale, multiple choice, ranking or open-ended free text questions. Descriptive analysis was applied to the quantitative data. Illustrative quotes were extracted from the qualitative free text data and a subset of these questions were analysed using framework analysis. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Results:</ns3:bold> Parent priorities for research centre around identification of factors which can protect against or improve adverse cognitive or developmental outcomes. The majority of parents would prefer for communication to begin within the first year of the child’s life. Parents reported a knowledge gap among health visitors, early years educators and schools. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Conclusions:</ns3:bold> In order to align with parent preferences, research should prioritise identification of protective factors and the development of effective interventions to improve outcomes. Training for health visitors and educational professionals could improve the experiences of families and children. </ns3:p>
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".