Development of an Instrument to Investigate Parents’ Perceptions of Research with Newborn Babies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neonatal intensive care nurses are often involved in research protocols as investigators, research assistants or staff nurses implementing the protocol and providing support and explanations to families. It is important, therefore, that nurses have information about parents' understanding of and attitudes towards the research process. The purpose of this study was to begin an exploration of parents' perceptions about research with newborn babies through the development and validation of a survey instrument. The questionnaire included: demographic questions; scaled items about research with newborn babies; scenarios describing research studies that varied in degree of risk and benefit to the newborn baby; questions about parents' willingness to enrol their newborn baby in the studies described; and questions regarding circumstances under which consent should be sought. Content and face validity were established by an expert panel and a pilot test conducted with a small group of health care professionals and lay persons. A convenience sample of 231 parents of newborn babies completed the final version of the questionnaire. Factor analysis revealed seven factors corresponding to issues identified in the literature, providing evidence of construct validity. Parents appeared to have no difficulty in completing the instrument and all questions were answered by the majority of participants. It was concluded that the questionnaire had adequate psychometric properties and that a mixed method approach can be fruitful in exploring sensitive issues.
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 | 0.043 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".