Parent Perspectives From a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Missing Piece of the Culturally Congruent Care Puzzle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of existing theoretical models and tools of culturally competent and congruent care have been developed from the health care provider perspective. Recently, the Culturally Congruent Care Puzzle proposed a model in the form of a three-dimensional puzzle with a provider level and a client level that interact to create the outcome level, which is culturally congruent care. However, the constructs that comprise the client, or patient, level, have not yet been clearly articulated. This study explored parent (client/patient) perceptions of culturally congruent care within a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit based on interviews with culturally diverse families with hospitalized infants (n = 21). The findings identified four primary constructs in the client/patient level: (a) a provider-client relationship of caring and trust, (b) respectful and appropriate communication, (c) culturally responsive and accessible social and spiritual supports, and (d) a welcoming and flexible organizational environment. These four interconnecting pieces are infused with the sociopolitical history and dynamics of culture, ethnicity, immigration, and colonization that clients/patients bring to their experience of health and health care. These elements of the client/patient level also interact with the provider level in various ways.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".