MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395462686 · doi:10.2196/54610

Photos Shared on Facebook in the Context of Safe Sleep Recommendations: Content Analysis of Images

2024· article· en· W4395462686 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kelly Pretorius, Sookja Kang, Eunju Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchSigma Theta Tau International
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Content (measure theory)Content analysisSleep (system call)PsychologyComputer scienceInternet privacySociologyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) remains a leading cause of infant mortality; therefore, understanding parental practices of infant sleep at home is essential. Since social media analyses yield invaluable patient perspectives, understanding sleep practices in the context of safe sleep recommendations via a Facebook mothers' group is instrumental for policy makers, health care providers, and researchers. Objective: This study aimed to identify photos shared by mothers discussing SUID and safe sleep online and assess their consistency with infant sleep guidelines per the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). We hypothesized the photos would not be consistent with guidelines based on prior research and increasing rates of accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed. Methods: Data were extracted from a Facebook mothers' group in May 2019. After trialing various search terms, searching for the term "SIDS" on the selected Facebook group resulted in the most relevant discussions on SUID and safe sleep. The resulting data, including 20 posts and 912 comments among 512 mothers, were extracted and underwent qualitative descriptive content analysis. In completing the extraction and subsequent analysis, 24 shared personal photos were identified among the discussions. Of the photos, 14 pertained to the infant sleep environment. Photos of the infant sleep environment were then assessed for consistency with safe sleep guidelines per the AAP standards by 2 separate reviewers. Results: Of the shared photos relating to the infant sleep environment, 86% (12/14) were not consistent with AAP safe sleep guidelines. Specific inconsistencies included prone sleeping, foreign objects in the sleeping environment, and use of infant sleeping devices. Use of infant monitoring devices was also identified. Conclusions: This study is unique because the photos originated from the home setting, were in the context of SUID and safe sleep, and were obtained without researcher interference. Despite study limitations, the commonality of prone sleeping, foreign objects, and the use of both infant sleep and monitoring devices (ie, overall inconsistency regarding AAP safe sleep guidelines) sets the stage for future investigation regarding parental barriers to practicing safe infant sleep and has implications for policy makers, clinicians, and researchers.

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)0.012
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207