MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410556189 · doi:10.2196/66073

An Internet-Based and Mobile Family Management Intervention for Mothers of Very Preterm Infants Hospitalized in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (the Preemie Progress Program): Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4410556189 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ashley Weber, Tamilyn Bakas, Qutaibah Oudat, Nehal A. Parikh, Joshua T. Lambert, Heather L. Tubbs‐Cooley, Jared B. Rice, Kristin C. Voos, Matthew Rota, Heather C. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing Research
KeywordsMedicineNeonatal intensive care unitRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionGestational ageIntensive carePediatricsEmergency medicinePregnancyNursingIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Flexible approaches to parenting training interventions in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), including family integrated care (FICare) models, are urgently needed across the globe. Many FICare trials inadvertently exclude parents with low resources who cannot commit to daily infant care (eg, 4-8 hours/day). Preemie Progress (PP) is a fully automated, video-based training program that allows parents to choose when and where they learn, without requiring parent bedside presence. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the feasibility of recruitment, retention, fidelity, and changes in outcomes during a pilot randomized controlled trial of PP, a video-based intervention aimed at training mothers of very preterm infants in evidence-based family management skills in the NICU. METHODS: Mothers of infants born between 25 weeks and 0 days to 31 weeks and 6 days of gestation were enrolled in an NICU in the Midwestern United States. Electronic surveys were sent to collect maternal outcomes (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] 8a depression and anxiety scales) at baseline (T1), 14 days (T2) and 28 days (T3) after T1, and 30 days after NICU discharge (T4). Infant electronic health records were extracted to collect infant (ie, weight gain velocity at 36 weeks and receipt of mother's milk) and health care outcomes (ie, NICU length of stay as well as readmissions and emergency department visits within 30 days of discharge). RESULTS: Of 123 eligible mothers, 64 (52%) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 arms (PP: n=33, 52%; attention control [AC]: n=31, 48%). Loss to follow-up was 30% (10/33) in the PP arm and 13% (4/31) in the AC arm. PP mothers watched a mean 17.8 (SD 18.9) of 49 videos. PP retention was linked to higher fidelity. PP mothers showed trends toward greater reductions in anxiety 30 days after discharge (mean -7.54, SD 1.93; 95% CI -11.32 to -3.76) compared to AC mothers (mean -4.67, SD 1.59; 95% CI -7.80 to -1.55). PP infants trended toward greater receipt of exclusively mother's milk 28 days after baseline (PP: 14/26, 54%; AC: 10/28, 36%) and decreased NICU stay (PP: 57.2 days; AC: 68.3 days) but higher readmissions (PP: 4/33, 12%; AC: 2/31, 6%). CONCLUSIONS: We were able to recruit a diverse sample of mothers from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, including mothers experiencing barriers to bedside presence. Recruitment goals were met. PP showed promising trends in improving maternal, infant, and health care outcomes. Additional studies are needed to optimize PP and study procedures to improve retention and fidelity. PP has the potential to support parent training outside of traditional FICare models or serve as a complement to structure the parent education pillar of adapted FICare models. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04638127; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04638127.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207