Evaluating parental perceptions of written handbooks provided during shared decision making with parents anticipating extremely preterm birth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore parental perceptions of written handbooks provided to them during antenatal counseling for anticipated extremely preterm birth. This study involved a prospective convenience sample of parents anticipating delivery between 22 weeks + 0 days and 25 weeks + 6 days gestation. The antenatal counseling involved a shared decision-making process. In-person interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide to gather feedback about new parent handbooks developed to support decision making. The questions during the semi-structured interview targeted seven main themes: overall impression, timing, graphs/tables, formatting, imagery, ease of use and understanding, and content. The interviews followed an antenatal consultation and provision of the appropriate handbook(s) by a neonatologist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis of the data was completed. Eleven parents were interviewed. All parents described the provision of the handbook(s) following the consultation with a neonatologist as the ideal time. All parents considered a visual representation of the data to be invaluable. Parents considered the handbooks easy to understand and straightforward. Some parents were satisfied with simple information, which helped them feel less overwhelmed; others felt the depth of information was insufficient. Parents preferred a paper copy to electronic. Reactions to the photo of an infant receiving intensive care varied; some parents felt frightened, others felt comforted. Overall, parents positively evaluated the handbooks, supporting their utility for parents anticipating extremely preterm birth. Concrete suggestions for improvement were made; the handbooks will be modified accordingly. Parents at other perinatal centers may benefit from receiving such handbooks.
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 | 0.013 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".