The Impact of Involvement of Father's with Preterm Newborns on their Paternal-Infant Bonding and Self-Efficacy: non-randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Premature birth and postpartum hospitalization can hurt the father-newborn bonding and fathers’ self-efficacy in the care of the newborn. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of the involvement of fathers with premature newborns on paternal-infant bonding and self-efficacy based on developmental care principles.Methods: This was a non-randomized clinical trial. Eighty fathers of hospitalized newborns in the neonatal intensive care unit were selected by convenience sampling method and divided into two groups ( 1 ). The intervention comprised training developmental care to fathers through simulations and then at the bedside of the newborn and the active involvement of fathers in the care of premature newborns admitted to the NICU. Pre-and post-intervention outcomes (after four weeks) were collected using Mother to Infant Bonding Scale and Perceived Maternal Parenting Self-Efficacy tool. Differences between groups were analyzed using independent t-test, paired t-test, repeated measures ANOVA.Results: The mean bonding score reduced by 2.3 ± 2.17 in the control group and 5.27 ± 2. 57 in the intervention group. A lower score represents a better bonding (f (1.78) = 9.19, p = 0.003). The self-efficacy score increased in both groups however, it was significantly higher in intervention group. In the intervention group increased by 8.85 ± 5.046, and in the control group, it increased by 1.27± 3.31, (f (1.78) = 21.88, p <0.001).Conclusions: Developmental care by fathers training and involvement in care can improve the father -infant bonding and increase the paternal self-efficacy for the care of the high risk newborn.Trial registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials: IRCT20171010036690N1, 2018-01-31.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".