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 being used to educate new parents about caring for themselves and their newborns during this time. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of structured postnatal education delivered by an educator to an individual or group on maternal/paternal and infant outcomes and health services, and whether the effects of structured postnatal education vary by length or type of intervention and by population. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2007), MEDLINE (1950 to September 2007), CINAHL (1982 to September 2007), ERIC (1966 to September 2007), HealthSTAR (1966 to September 2007), PsycINFO (1806 to September 2007), Sociological Abstracts (1974 to September 2007), ClinicalTrials.gov (August 2007), Current Controlled Trials (August 2007), Trialscentral.org (August 2007) and The National Research Register (August 2007). 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 of the family. 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: We included 14 trials (2934 women) and excluded 24. Of the 14 included studies, education tested included: four on infant sleep enhancement, four on infant behaviour, two on general post-birth health, three on infant safety, and one on father involvement/skills with infants. Details of the randomization procedures, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors, and/or participant accrual/loss were often not reported. Of the outcomes analyzed, only five were measured similarly enough by more than one study to be combined in meta-analyses and these included the same two studies. Of these five meta-analyses, only one was 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 sleep in 24 hours (95% confidence interval 18.53 to 39.73) than usual care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of educational programs to participants and their newborn infants remain unclear. Education on sleep enhancement appears to increase infant sleep although more and larger 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 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.012 | 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".