Models of partnership within family‐centred care in the acute paediatric setting: a discussion paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: A discussion of partnership in the context of family-centred care in the acute paediatric setting, through a critical analysis of partnership models. BACKGROUND: Paediatric healthcare practitioners understand the importance of family-centred care, but struggle with how to translate the core tenets into action and are confused by several rival terms. Partnering relationships are included in definitions of family-centred care, yet less is known about strategies to fully engage or support parents in these partnerships. A rigorous examination of concepts embedded in family-centred care such as partnership may provide a better understanding of how to implement the broader concept and support exemplary care in today's clinical practice environment. DESIGN: Discussion paper. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search (January 2000 - December 2014) performed on CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE, Sociological Abstracts and PsychINFO using keywords partnership, family-centred care and conceptual framework. Eligible references were drawn from the databases, reference lists and expert sources. Eight models met inclusion criteria and had currency and relevance to the acute paediatric setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurses should continue exploring partnership in various paediatric contexts given the wide-ranging definitions, lack of operational indicators and need for stronger relational statements in current models. An examination of key strategies, barriers and facilitators of partnership is recommended. CONCLUSION: One partnership model had both high overall maturity and best fit with family-centred care principles. All models originate from Western and developed countries, indicating that future partnership models should be more geographically, culturally and economically diverse.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".