Infant sleep position: Nurses' awareness and practice of the Canadian Joint Statement recommendation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This replication study examined maternal-child health care nurses' awareness and practice of the Canadian Joint Statement (CJS) recommendation for infant sleep position; i.e., that normal, healthy infants be placed solely on their back for sleep (Canadian Joint Statement, 1999). A descriptive survey of 65 nurses in seven health care organizations in both the hospital and community setting was conducted. Findings revealed that the majority of nurses (87.7%) were aware of the CJS recommendation; however, only one-third of the nurses actually integrated it into their practice. Less than 50% of nurses strongly agreed with the CJS recommendation and cited reasons such as potential for adverse consequences, previous experience/training in nursing and experience with infants as reasons for their lack of strong agreement. Community nurses tended to provide more education to parents about infant sleeping position than did hospital nurses. Findings revealed several possible reasons for nurses' failure to routinely integrate the CJS recommendation into their practice including inappropriate communication of the CJS to nurses, lack of specific implementation guidelines for applying the CJS to nurses' practice and lack of organizational support for the integration of the CJS. This study suggests that the role of policy in shaping nursing practice must be examined further and that nurses must increase their use of evidence-based practice in nursing. Nurses' utilization of research may be enhanced by organizational supports including structures which allow nurses to be involved in the development of evidence-based practice policy, designated and protected time for nursing research and education in the form of practice development groups, education in research utilization workshops and ward based research utilization workshops. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2002 .B87. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 41-04, page: 1056. Adviser: Anne Snowdon. Thesis (M.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2002.
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 | 0.032 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".