Nurses’ views of factors affecting sleep for hospitalized children and their families: A focus group study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light, noise, and interruptions from hospital staff lead to frequent awakenings and detrimental changes to sleep quantity and quality for children who are hospitalized and their parents who stay with them overnight. An understanding of nurses' views on how care affects sleep for the hospitalized child and parent is crucial to the development of strategies to decrease sleep disturbance in hospital. The purpose of this descriptive qualitative study was to gain an understanding of nurses' views on their role in and influence on sleep for families; perceived barriers and facilitators of patient and parent sleep at night; strategies nurses use to preserve sleep; the distribution, between parent and nurse, of care for the child at night; views of the parent as a recipient of nursing care at night; and the nature of interactions between nurses and families at night. Thirty registered nurses from general pediatric and critical care units participated in one of four semi-structured focus groups. Four main influences on sleep were identified: child factors; environmental factors; nurse-parent interaction factors; and nursing care factors. Some of these restricted nurses' ability to optimize sleep, but many factors were amenable to intervention. Balancing strategies to preserve sleep with the provision of nursing assessment and intervention was challenging and complicated by the difficult nature of work outside of usual waking hours. Nurses highlighted the need for formal policy and mentoring related to provision of nursing care at night in pediatric settings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it