Effect of Nursing Education on Positioning of Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effect of different forms of education on nurses' abilities to position neonates in a developmentally supportive way and to determine nurses' perceptions of effectiveness of educational methods to enhance their positioning abilities. METHOD: In a one-group, repeated-measures, alternating-treatment design, the effectiveness of nurses' abilities to position neonates in the context of developmentally supportive care before and after different education approaches was scored using an instrument designed for this study. A self-administered survey was conducted with nurses to examine perceptions of positioning-related issues. RESULTS: Formal education methods such as in-services and workshops improved nurses' abilities to position neonates in developmentally supportive positions; however, improvements declined in the absence of ongoing education. Nurses perceived workshops, physical therapy in-services, and bedside consultation to be more useful than audiovisual resources, independent reading, or general hospital in-services. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the physical therapist's role as a consultant is important to ensure continued performance of developmentally supportive care with respect to positioning of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".