Expectant and New Mothers’ Use of Facebook Private Groups to Learn about Infant Sleep and Feeding Practices (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sudden and unexpected infant death is a leading cause of postneonatal death in the United States. Following recommended infant care practices such as safe sleep and breastfeeding reduces the risk of sudden and unexpected infant death. Parents use social media to help them make decisions about infant care practices. Objective: The objective of our qualitative study was to explore mothers' perspectives on the acceptability of Facebook private groups for providing education on infant care practices. Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study that recruited a purposeful sample of pregnant persons and mothers who recently gave birth; all were clients of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children in 1 of 2 states. We conducted in-depth interviews that were analyzed inductively through a systematic, iterative process using an interview guide. We asked participants about their perspectives regarding the use of Facebook private groups for learning about infant care practices, including sleep practices and breastfeeding. Data were collected until data sufficiency was reached. Results: Of the 22 participants, 13 (59.1%) were Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children clients from Rhode Island, and 9 (40.9%) were from Virginia. While participants' use of Facebook in general varied, all either used Facebook private groups to obtain infant care practice guidance about safe sleep and breastfeeding or liked the idea of using specifically Facebook private groups to disseminate this information to pregnant persons and new parents. Participants reported using Facebook private groups for three main purposes: (1) information seeking, (2) the experience of engaging with Facebook private groups, and (3) social connectedness. Conclusions: Facebook private groups were endorsed by the participants for providing mothers with information about infant care practices. Participants outlined their reasons for and experience with the use of Facebook private groups, which can inform effective use of the platform for educational interventions.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".