Implementing Family-Integrated Care in the NICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate a nursing education program to support family-integrated care in a Canadian neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). A total of 44 nurses volunteered to take part in the family-integrated care program, 35 of whom received additional education in the form of a 4-hour workshop. Of the 35 nurses who attended, 21 were interviewed regarding the impact and content of the workshop. The study design included the development, implementation, and qualitative assessment of the nursing education component of a family-integrated care program. The multidisciplinary program team conducted a literature review and then designed and conducted a survey to assess the educational requirements of nurses regarding family-integrated care. A nursing workshop was then developed on the basis of the literature review, staff survey responses, and discussions with staff and parents who had experienced having an infant in the NICU. Six months into the program, the contribution of the nursing workshop content to nurses' participation in the family-integrated care program was evaluated using individual structured interviews. Nurses who were interviewed described the workshop as valuable and reported that the information provided on nursing versus parental responsibilities in infant care, the parent experience in the NICU, and developmental care strategies was the most useful. Interviewees also identified the need for ongoing staff mentoring to maximize their ability to facilitate family-integrated care. Specific education for nurses facilitates family-integrated care in the NICU.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".