Fragility and resilience: parental and family perspectives on the impacts of extreme prematurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Extremely preterm babies have a significant risk of neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI). There has been little investigation regarding the impact of prematurity on families. The objective of this study was to explore parental perspectives regarding the impact of prematurity on themselves/their family. METHODS: Over 1 year, parents of children born <29 weeks' gestational age (GA) who were between 18 months old and 7 years old and came for their follow-up visit were invited to participate. They were asked to categorise the impacts of prematurity on their life and their family as positive, negative or both and to describe those impacts in their own words. Thematic analysis was performed by a multidisciplinary group, including parents. Logistic regression was performed to compare parental responses. RESULTS: Among parents (n=248, 98% participation rate), most (74%) reported that their child's prematurity had both positive and negative impacts on their life or their family's life, while 18% reported only positive impacts and 8% only negative impacts. These proportions were not correlated with GA, brain injury, nor level of NDI. The positive impacts reported included: an improved outlook on life, such as gratitude and perspective (48%), stronger family relationships (31%) and the gift of the child (28%). The negative themes were stress and fear (42%), loss of equilibrium due to medical fragility (35%) and concerns about developmental outcomes including the child's future (18%). CONCLUSION: Parents report both positive and negative impacts after an extremely preterm birth, independent of disability. These balanced perspectives should be included in neonatal research, clinical care and provider education.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".