Prenatal Workshops and Support Groups for Prospective Parents Whose Children Will Need Neonatal Care at Birth: A Feasibility and Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Support groups in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) are beneficial to parents. The usefulness of prenatal support groups for prospective parents who will have a newborn requiring admission to the NICU has never been investigated. Methods: We assessed the needs of NICU parents regarding topics they would have wished to discuss prenatally and developed the content of a prenatal support workshop. A standardized survey prospectively evaluated the perspectives of pregnant women admitted to a high-risk pregnancy unit who participated in the resulting workshops. Results: During needs assessment, 295 parents invoked themes they would have wished to discuss antenatally: parental guilt, future parental role, normalizing their experience/emotions, coping with many losses, adapting to their new reality, control and trust, information about the NICU, technology around the baby, common neonatal interventions, the NICU clinical team, and the role of parents in the team. These findings were used to develop the workshop, including a moderator checklist and a visual presentation. Practical aspects of the meetings were tested/finalized during a pre-pilot phase. Among 21 pregnant women who answered the survey (average gestational age 29.3 weeks), all agreed that the workshop was useful, that it made them feel less lonely (95%), that exchanges with other women were beneficial (95%) and gave them a certain amount of control over their situation (89%). All answers to open-ended questions were positive. Conclusion: Prenatal educational/support workshops provide a unique and useful means to support future NICU parents. Future investigations will explore whether these prenatal interventions improve clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".