MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fathers’ perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to their involvement with their newborn hospitalised in the neonatal intensive care unit

2012· article· en· W2123513235 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Feeley, Elana Waitzer, Kathryn Sherrard, Linda Boisvert, Phyllis Zelkowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacilitatorNeonatal intensive care unitNursingQualitative researchContext (archaeology)MedicineIntensive carePerceptionContent analysisRelevance (law)PsychologyInterpersonal communicationPediatricsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore what fathers perceive to be facilitators or barriers to their involvement with their infants. BACKGROUND: Fathers make unique and important contributions to the development of their infants. Fathers of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit often feel that they have a limited role to play in their infant's care, and surveys suggest that they are not typically involved in infant caregiving. Paradoxically, qualitative studies have found that fathers do want to be involved, and their lack of involvement is an important source of stress. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive. METHODS: Eighteen fathers of infants, in the neonatal intensive care unit for at least one week, were interviewed and asked to describe what they perceived to be the barriers and facilitators to their involvement. Interviews were audio taped and transcribed, and the data was content analysed. RESULTS: Three major categories of barriers/facilitators were identified: (1) infant factors (size and health status, twin birth and infant feedback), (2) interpersonal factors (the rewards of and attitudes and beliefs regarding fatherhood; family management; previous experiences) and (3) neonatal intensive care unit environmental factors (physical and social). These factors could often be a barrier or facilitator to involvement depending on the context. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into what factors influence involvement, and how nursing staff can support involvement and best meet fathers' needs. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses should explore the forms of involvement that a father desires, as well as the demands on their time, and determine what might be done to promote involvement. Fathers should be assisted to maximise the time that they do have with the infant. Nurses must provide clear and consistent information about whether and when caregiving is advisable, and they can explain and demonstrate how fathers can care for their infant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations134
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207