Changes associated with the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic on postpartum screening results in Ontario, Canada: The healthy babies healthy children screening tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mothers/childbearing parents has mainly been cross-sectional and focused on psychological symptoms. This study examined the impact on function using ongoing, systematic screening of a representative Ontario sample. METHODS: An interrupted time series analysis of repeated cross-sectional data from a province-wide screening program using the Healthy Babies Healthy Children (HBHC) tool assessed changes associated with the pandemic at the time of postpartum discharge from hospital. Postal codes were used to link to neighborhood-level data. The ability to parent or care for the baby/child and other psychosocial and behavioral outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: The co-primary outcomes of inability to parent or care for the baby/child were infrequently observed in the pre-pandemic (March 9, 2019-March 15, 2020) and initial pandemic periods (March 16, 2020-March 23, 2021) (parent 209/63,006 (0.33%)-177/56,117 (0.32%), care 537/62,955 (0.85%)-324/56,086 (0.58%)). Changes after pandemic onset were not observed for either outcome although a significant (p = 0.02) increase in slope was observed for inability to parent (with questionable clinical significance). For secondary outcomes, worsening was only seen for reported complications during labor/delivery. Significant improvements were observed in the likelihood of being unable to identify a support person to assist with care, need of newcomer support, and concerns about money over time. CONCLUSIONS: There were no substantive changes in concerns about ability to parent or care for children. Adverse impacts of the pandemic may have been mitigated by accommodations for remote work and social safety net policies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".