MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386989366 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxad055.094

94 Understanding Parental Behaviours Related to Infant Sleep Environment

2023· article· en· W4386989366 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer L. Smith, Julie Johnstone, Sanjay Mahant, Michelle Shouldice

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPediatric health and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSudden infant death syndromeMedicinePerceptionQualitative researchCoding (social sciences)PsychologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction/Background Sudden unexplained death in infants continues to make up a significant proportion of infant deaths. Despite wide dissemination of Canadian Paediatric Society and American Academy of Paediatrics safe sleep recommendations, studies demonstrate significant caregiver nonadherence to the recommendations. Few studies have examined caregiver reasons for low uptake of recommendations. There is an urgent need to understand these issues not only for individual providers counseling about sleep, but also for implementation of public health initiatives which attempt to target parental behaviour change. Objectives Our study aimed to explore parental perceptions, beliefs and influences regarding safe infant sleep environment and factors contributing to parental behaviour related to sleep environment. Design/Methods A qualitative study utilizing ground theory methodology was conducted with in-depth individual interviews of 14 parents of infants less than six months admitted to a large paediatric hospital in Toronto, Canada. Data collection occurred from November 2017 to January 2018, until a saturation of themes was reached. Interview transcripts were analyzed for recurrent and emergent themes and a coding structure was developed. Results Interviews with caregivers were completed, and a range of sleep locations and environments were described. Most caregivers reported that a bassinet or crib was the main sleeping location, but most infants were also placed in other locations at various times, including infant swings, couches, and bed-sharing with caregivers. Three dominant themes affecting decision-making about sleep location were identified: 1. safety, 2. feasibility and convenience and, 3. perception of infant preference and developmental needs. These factors were often present simultaneously in parental decision-making, frequently acting in opposition to one another. Caregivers’ methods of mitigating harm were often counter to recommendations, such as using pillows to prevent rolling. Information sources regarding sleep choices typically included family, friends, healthcare providers and media. Most caregivers placed greater significance on healthcare recommendations than the advice of family members. Conclusion This study identified key factors that impact caregivers’ decision-making regarding infant sleep. These results can inform healthcare providers counselling about safe sleep recommendations and public health interventions aimed at increasing adherence to safe sleep recommendations and reducing preventable infant deaths.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicPediatric health and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207