Understanding kangaroo care and its benefits to preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marsha L Campbell-Yeo,1–4 Timothy C Disher,1 Britney L Benoit,1 C Celeste Johnston,2,4,5 1School of Nursing, Dalhousie University, 2Department of Pediatrics, IWK Health Centre, 3Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, 4Centre for Pediatric Pain Research, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, 5Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada Abstract: The holding of an infant with ventral skin-to-skin contact typically in an upright position with the swaddled infant on the chest of the parent, is commonly referred to as kangaroo care (KC), due to its simulation of marsupial care. It is recommended that KC, as a feasible, natural, and cost-effective intervention, should be standard of care in the delivery of quality health care for all infants, regardless of geographic location or economic status. Numerous benefits of its use have been reported related to mortality, physiological (thermoregulation, cardiorespiratory stability), behavioral (sleep, breastfeeding duration, and degree of exclusivity) domains, as an effective therapy to relieve procedural pain, and improved neurodevelopment. Yet despite these recommendations and a lack of negative research findings, adoption of KC as a routine clinical practice remains variable and underutilized. Furthermore, uncertainty remains as to whether continuous KC should be recommended in all settings or if there is a critical period of initiation, dose, or duration that is optimal. This review synthesizes current knowledge about the benefits of KC for infants born preterm, highlighting differences and similarities across low and higher resource countries and in a non-pain and pain context. Additionally, implementation considerations and unanswered questions for future research are addressed. Keywords: kangaroo care, skin-to-skin contact, infant, preterm, review
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".