Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40443798›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2025

Alessandra Prioreschi, Deborah M James, Rebecca M Pearson, Antonia Smith, Shane A Norris, Kirsten L Rennie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alessandra PrioreschiSAMRC Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit, University of the Witwatersrand, School of Clinical Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6913-0706
Deborah M JamesEducation and Social Research Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University Faculty of Health and Education, Manchester, England, UK.
Rebecca M PearsonEducation and Social Research Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University Faculty of Health and Education, Manchester, England, UK.
Antonia SmithMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1202-4474
Shane A NorrisSAMRC Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit, University of the Witwatersrand, School of Clinical Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7124-3788
Kirsten L RennieMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, England, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

behaviour changeEarly childhood developmentparenting interventionpersonalisedsensitivity

Identifiers

PMID40443798
PMCPMC12120436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.