ArticleWellcome open research2025
Article in Wellcome open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this pilot study was to describe the development of, and test the acceptability and feasibility of providing feedback on two behaviours in the context of supportive approaches to improve maternal self-efficacy. We hypothesised that providing individual behavioural feedback to mothers in a socially vulnerable context, when later embedded in supportive intervention approaches, may improve maternal self-efficacy and ultimately promote infant development. Methods: Feedback was developed following expert consultation with working groups, and included graphical feedback on mother and infant movement behaviours measured using accelerometry, as well as video feedback of mother-infant interactions using first person observation head cameras. Mothers wore the devices for one week, following which individual feedback on movement behaviours and mother-infant interactions was delivered at the Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital. We adapted an established and published strengths based approach as a guide for health workers to feedback video and accelerometer data. Feasibility and acceptability were tested by conducting focus group discussions with a sample of 8 mothers of infants aged 4-months from South Africa using a semi-structured interview guide. Results: Mothers included in this study were generally single, unemployed, and less than half had completed formal schooling. Most mothers had two or more children, and lived in informal housing (such as shacks and small, temporary prefabricated structures) with only outdoor toilet facilities available. The feedback was found to be both feasible, and largely acceptable in this context and compliance was 100%. Conclusion: We have been able to develop feedback with the potential to sensitise mothers to their infants' behaviours. When embedded in a supportive intervention, these feedback modalities have the potential to improve mother's self-efficacy through increasing feelings of competence and reflexive functioning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.