Butterflies and Ribbons: Supporting Families Experiencing Perinatal Loss in Multiple Gestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In neonatology, multiple pregnancies are common. Unfortunately, it is not rare for one baby to die. Communication with parents in these circumstances has been demonstrated to be sub-optimal. Methods: Two educational programs were evaluated with pre- and post-course surveys, questionnaires administered to participants, and audits. Results: In the online Butterfly project (UK; n = 734 participants), all participants reported that the training exceeded or met their expectations, 97% reported they learned new skills, and 48% had already applied them. Participants expressed gratitude in their open-ended answers: “I feel a lot more confident in supporting parents in this situation”. In the Ribbon project (workshop for neonatal clinicians, Quebec; n = 242), 97% were satisfied with the training and reported feeling more comfortable caring for bereaved parents. Knowledge improved pre–post training. Audits revealed that 100% of cases were identified on the incubator and the baby’s/babies’ admission card, all changed rooms after the death of their co-twin/triplet, and all had the name of their co-twin/triplet on the discharge summary. All clinicians (55) knew what the ribbon symbol meant when asked during surprise audits at the bedside. Conclusion: Different educational strategies to optimize communication with families after the perinatal loss of a co-twin are appreciated and have a positive impact.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".