Postnatal parental education for optimizing infant general health and parent-infant relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many learning needs arise in the early postpartum period, and it is important to examine interventions used to educate new parents about caring for their newborns during this time. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the effects of structured postnatal education delivered by an educator to an individual or group on infant general health and parent-infant relationships. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2009), CINAHL (1982 to July 2009), ERIC (1966 to July 2009), HealthSTAR (1966 to July 2009), PsycINFO (1806 to July 2009), Sociological Abstracts (1974 to July 2009), ClinicalTrials.gov (August 2009), Current Controlled Trials (August 2009), and Trialscentral.org (August 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of any structured postnatal education provided by an educator to individual parents or groups of parents within the first two months post birth related to the care of an infant or parent-infant relationships. We excluded studies of educational interventions for parents of infants in neonatal intensive care units. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors assessed trial quality and extracted data from published reports. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 25 trials (3689 mothers and 793 fathers) that met the inclusion criteria, only 15 (2868 mothers and 613 fathers) reported useable data. Educational interventions included: four on infant sleep enhancement, 13 on infant behaviour, two on general post-birth health, two on infant care, three on infant safety, and one on father involvement/skills with infants. Details of the randomization procedures, allocation concealment, blinding, and participant loss were often not reported. Of the outcomes analyzed, only six were measured similarly enough by more than one study to be combined in meta-analyses. Of these six meta-analyses, only two were found to have a low enough level of heterogeneity to provide an overall estimate of effect. Education on sleep enhancement resulted in a mean difference of 29 more minutes of infant sleep in 24 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.53 to 39.73) than usual care. Education on infant behaviour increased maternal knowledge of infant behaviour by a mean difference of 2.85 points (95% CI 1.78 to 3.91). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of educational programs to participants and their newborns remain unclear. Education on sleep enhancement appears to increase infant sleep and education about infant behaviour potentially enhances mothers' knowledge; however more and larger, well-designed studies are needed to confirm this.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".