Implementing Family-Integrated Care in the NICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to describe and evaluate how "veteran" parents were engaged as experts in the design and implementation of a family-integrated care program in a Canadian neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Three parents of preterm infants previously discharged from the NICU participated in the design and implementation of a family-integrated care pilot program. The steering committee for the program included 5 staff members (a physician, a NICU nurse, a parent education nurse, a lactation consultant, and a social worker) and the parent volunteers. This article includes a total of 42 mothers of infants born at 35-week gestation or less were enrolled in the pilot program. A detailed description and qualitative evaluation of the engagement of veteran parents in the design and implementation of the family-integrated care program. The effectiveness of engaging veteran parents in developing this model of care was evaluated by written feedback from the veteran parents and the other steering committee members. In addition, a structured interview at discharge with the 42 mothers enrolled in the pilot study was used to assess their experiences of the peer-to-peer support provided by veteran parents. Veteran NICU parents brought a wealth of wisdom and expertise developed through personal experience to the design and implementation of the family-integrated care program. The veteran parents played a significant role in both the initial development of the program and in the provision of peer-to-peer support during program implementation. Engagement of parents with prior experience of the NICU care environment is a critical step in the design and implementation of a program of family-integrated care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".