The Effect of Group-Based Early Parent Education on Development in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study explored how group-based early parent education impacts development in preterm infants. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, with a historical control group, included preterm infants (n = 246) with corrected ages (CAs) of 0-3 months. Those visiting the clinic between July 2017 and December 2018 formed the control group (n = 145), whereas those visiting between January 2019 and February 2020 (n = 101) constituted the education group. The education group received six education sessions performed by a physical therapist, and two sessions conducted by an occupational therapist at CAs of 0-6 months. Assessments included the following: Alberta Infant Motor Scale at CA 3, 6, 9, and 12 months; Bayley Scales of Infant Development II at CA 12 and 24 months; and the Sequenced Language Scale for Infants at CA 24 months. RESULTS: The education group, which initially showed greater developmental delay than the control group, showed no significant delay after education sessions. Developmental improvements were more prominent in infants born before 28 weeks' gestational age, and in infants with no, or mild, brain injury. CONCLUSIONS: Group-based early parent education improved development at CA 24 months in preterm infants, especially in infants born before 28 weeks gestational age, and in infants with no, or mild, brain injury. This approach may enhance developmental outcomes in preterm infants.
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".