Antenatal consultation for parents whose child may require admission to neonatal intensive care: a focus group study for media design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For parents whose child may require admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), the antenatal consultation is often their first point of contact with the child's medical team. Consultation challenges health professionals, as parents may be anxious, overwhelmed, or even exhausted by what is and what might occur. Despite consultation being a common practice, there is a paucity of research on how to support practitioners and parents. The purpose of this study was to gain insights into important relational aspects of antenatal consultation that may be used to spur the development of media to support consultation. METHODS: Focus group, as a data collection method, was employed to gather insights about antenatal consultation from a total of 50 hospital staff and 17 NICU parents from a large urban NICU program in western Canada. Qualitative content analysis was applied to the obtained materials to explicate themes that may serve as necessary understandings for media design. RESULTS: Participating hospital staff and parents expressed their desire for a good antenatal consultation with comments grouped under the following themes: supporting the building of a caring relation; sharing information in conversation; and, preparing for what is to come. CONCLUSIONS: To support the emerging relations of baby, parent, and hospital staff, a good antenatal consultation needs to convey care, understanding, and empathy; create possibilities for open and genuine conversations; and, foster the buildings of respect, confidence, and trust.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".