MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199153391 · doi:10.2196/31908

Promoting Safe Sleep, Tobacco Cessation, and Breastfeeding to Rural Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Quasi-Experimental Study

2021· article· en· W3199153391 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carolyn R. Ahlers‐Schmidt, Christy Schunn, Ashley M. Hervey, Maria Torres, Jill Elizabeth V Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicinePandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Family medicinePsychologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Safe Sleep Community Baby Showers address strategies to prevent sleep-related infant deaths. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these events transitioned from in-person to virtual. OBJECTIVE: This study describes outcomes of transitioning Safe Sleep Community Baby Showers to a virtual format and compares outcomes to previous in-person events. METHODS: Participants from four rural Kansas counties were emailed the presurvey, provided educational materials (videos, livestream, or digital documents), and completed a postsurvey. Those who completed both surveys received a portable crib and wearable blanket. Within-group comparisons were assessed between pre- and postsurveys; between-group comparisons (virtual vs in-person) were assessed by postsurveys. RESULTS: Based on data from 145 in-person and 74 virtual participants, virtual participants were more likely to be married (P<.001) and have private insurance (P<.001), and were less likely to report tobacco use (P<.001). Both event formats significantly increased knowledge and intentions regarding safe sleep and avoidance of secondhand smoke (all P≤.001). Breastfeeding intentions did not change. Differences were observed between in-person and virtual meetings regarding confidence in the ability to avoid secondhand smoke (in-person: 121/144, 84% vs virtual: 53/74, 72%; P=.03), intention to breastfeed ≥6 months (in-person: 79/128, 62% vs virtual: 52/66, 79%; P=.008), and confidence in the ability to breastfeed ≥6 months (in-person: 58/123, 47% vs virtual: 44/69, 64%; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Although both event formats demonstrated increased knowledge/intentions to follow safe sleep recommendations, virtual events may further marginalize groups who are at high risk for poor birth outcomes. Strategies to increase technology access, recruit priority populations, and ensure disparities are not exacerbated will be critical for the implementation of future virtual events.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207