The effect of person-centred communication on parental stress in a NICU: a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the effect of the Guided Family-Centred Care intervention, developed by the lead author, on parental stress in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS: Parents (n = 134) of infants born ≤34 weeks gestational age were randomly assigned to a standard care group (n = 60) or intervention group (n = 74) between April 2011 and August 2012. Guided Family-Centred Care components used were as follows: scheduled nurse-parent dialogues, semi-structured reflection sheets and person-centred communication. Parental stress was assessed at discharge using parent-reported outcomes on the Nurse Parent Support Tool and the Parental Stressor Scale: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. RESULTS: The total stress scores reported by parents did not vary significantly between the intervention and standard groups, with a mean (SD) of 2.70 (0.67) versus 2.84 (0.71), respectively. However, the confidence interval included the prespecified clinical significance level. Subscale and Nurse Parent Support Tool scores did not differ between the groups. Overall, mothers reported more stress than fathers (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study was unable to demonstrate the effect of person-centred communication using the Guided Family-Centred Care intervention. It may be necessary to replicate the design to address the risk of contamination and add instruments sensitive to human interaction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".