Child and parent mental health outcomes following NICU admission for treatment of congenital anomalies: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Long-term mental health support is not routinely offered to families of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) graduates treated for non-cardiac congenital anomalies. This may reflect the paucity of evidence-based guidance for clinical practice in these diagnostic groups.Objective: This systematic review aimed to explore long-term mental health outcomes of NICU graduates and their parents, following treatment for non-cardiac congenital anomalies.Methods: A systematic review of empirical literature was conducted for the following diagnoses: congenital diaphragmatic hernia, oesophageal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, Pierre Robin sequence, and Vein of Galen aneurysmal malformations. Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were comprehensively searched to identify relevant articles. Risk of bias assessments were conducted using the QualSyst quality assessment tool for articles meeting the following inclusion criteria: English- language articles published in peer-reviewed journals on or before 9 May 9 2025, that used validated quantitative mental health measures.Results: Of the 45 included articles, 38 examined child mental health and 14 investigated parental mental health (seven studies explored both child and parent mental health). Twenty-six measures were used, most commonly the Child Behavior Checklist for child mental health and the Short Form Health Survey for parental mental health. Although methodological heterogeneity yielded conflicting results, overall, the evidence summarised suggested both the child and parents were at an increased risk of long-term mental health difficulties.Conclusion: The evidence presented in this review highlights the value of incorporating routine mental health follow-up into the standard clinical care of children and families affected by congenital anomalies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".