Direct, non-medical out-of-pocket expenditures for mothers of moderate or late preterm infants in a level II NICU: Comparison of Alberta Family Integrated Care versus standard care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare direct, non-medical out-of-pocket expenditures (OOPE) between mothers receiving Alberta Family Integrated Care (FICare™) versus standard care (SC) during their infant's neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission and explore factors influencing spending extremes. Methods In this exploratory, concurrent mixed-methods sub-study, we compared mother-reported OOPE from Alberta FICare™ and SC parent journals. We thematically analyzed hand-written notes from 30 journals with the highest and lowest 5 % of OOPE. Results There was no difference in total direct, non-medical OOPE between Alberta FICare™ ( n = 194) and SC ( n = 132) groups ( U = 12,679.50, p = 0.882). Compared to mothers receiving SC, mothers receiving Alberta FICare™ reported spending less for parking ( U = 970.00, p < 0.001) and more for food ( U = 14,857.50, p = 0.014) and lodging ( U = 15,160.00, p < 0.001). Spending extremes related to travel and proximity of the NICU to their home. Conclusion Total family financial burden was similar between groups; there were differences in spending categories. Supports to offset OOPE, particularly for families living distant to the NICU or facing transportation challenges, would reduce financial burden and could enhance family-integrated care. Innovation This novel analysis describes mother-reported OOPEs and strategies to mitigate financial barriers to family integrated care.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".