Family integrated care: very preterm neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the family integrated care (FICare) programme, a multifaceted approach which enables parents to be engaged as primary caregivers in the neonatal intensive care unit, impacts infant neurodevelopment and growth at 18 months' corrected age. DESIGN/METHODS: Prospective cohort study of infants born <29 weeks' gestational age (GA) who participated in the FICare cluster randomised control trial (cRCT) and were assessed in the Canadian Neonatal Follow-Up Network (CNFUN). The primary outcome measure, Cognitive or Language composite score <85 on the Bayley-III, was compared between FICare exposed and routine care children using logistic regression, adjusted for potential confounders and employing generalised estimation equations to account for clustering of infants within sites. RESULTS: Of 756 infants <29 weeks' GA in the FICare cRCT, 505 were enrolled in CNFUN and 455 were assessed (238 FICare, 217 control). Compared with controls, FICare infants had significantly higher incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) (19.5% vs 11.7%, p=0.024) and higher proportion of employed mothers (76.6% vs 73.6%, p=0.043). There was no significant difference in the odds of the primary outcome (adjusted OR: 0.92 (0.59 to 1.42) FiCare vs Control) on multivariable analyses adjusted for GA, IVH and maternal employment. However, Bayley-III Motor scores (adjusted difference in mean (95% CI) 3.87 (1.22 to 6.53) and body mass index 0.67 (0.36 to 0.99) were higher in the FICare group. CONCLUSIONS: Very preterm infants exposed to FICare had no significant difference in incidence of cognitive or language delay but had better motor development. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Participants in this cohort study were previously enrolled in a registered trial: NCT01852695.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".