Family-Centered Care In Ontario General Hospitals: The Views of Pediatric Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Registered nurses and registered practical nurses working on pediatric units in 35 Ontario general hospitals participated in a study that examined their perceptions and practices of family-centered care (FCC). The Family-Centered Care Questionnaire-Revised (FCCQ-R) was used to collect the data. The participants were asked to rate their level of agreement regarding necessary elements (perceptions) of family-centered care and whether these elements are part of their current work (practice). The participants had a reasonable knowledge of the necessary elements of family-centered care, but were not consistently including these in their every day work. A number of barriers to the implementation of family-centered care were also identified. Perception and practice scores were higher among those who had participated in continuing education on family-centered care than those who had not. The findings suggest that some nurses may be having difficulties shifting from a medical helping model of care to an enabling helping model of care, which is considered the foundation of family-centered care. Difficulties in implementing family-centered care appear to be systemic, both at the unit and organizational level. Based on the findings, implications for practice, education and research are suggested.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".