The art of developmental care in the NICU: a concept analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The survival rate of infants born prematurely and hospitalized in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) has increased due to improvement of the technology in obstetrics and neona tology that allows saving preterm infants at earlier gestational ages. Preterm infants are hospitalized in a care environment which is quite different from the maternal womb. Therefore the application of developmental care in NICUs is critical to promote the development of preterm infants while they are hospitalized. AIM: This concept analysis contributes to the body of knowledge in developmental care and clarifies its understanding as well as its involvement in neonatal practice and research. METHODS: Using the method of concept analysis of Walker and Avant, this article identifies the definitions and uses of the concept of developmental care, exposes its main attributes and introduces a model case representing the acknowledged attributes. The antecedents of the concept and consequences of the application of developmental care are discussed. CONCLUSION: This concept analysis provides guidelines for nurses and health professionals to establish a 'developmental care' environment which is conducive for preterm infants. Moreover, it suggests conceptual and operational foundations of developmental care for clinicians and researchers in the neonatal field.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".