Hospital routines promote parent–infant closeness and cause separation in the birthing unit in the first 2 hours after birth: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the evidence of multiple benefits of early skin-to-skin contact, it does not always happen and infants are separated from their parents because of different hospital practices. The aim of this study was to explore parent-infant closeness and separation, and which factors promote closeness or result in separation in the birthing unit in the first 2 hours after birth from the point of view of staff members. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive pilot study was conducted in one university hospital in Finland in December 2014. Midwives and auxiliary nurses working in the birthing unit were eligible for the study. The data were collected with a new application downloaded on a smartphone. The participants were asked to record all the closeness and separation events they observed between the infants and parents using the application. RESULTS: The application was used during 20 work shifts by 14 midwives or auxiliary nurses. The participants described more closeness than separation events. Our findings indicated that the staff of the birthing unit aimed for mother-infant closeness, and father-infant closeness was a secondary goal. Closeness was mostly skin-to-skin contact and justified as a normal routine care practice. Infants were separated from their parents for routine measurements and because of infants' compromised health. CONCLUSION: Routines and normal care practices both promoted parent-infant closeness and caused separation. Parent-infant closeness and separation were controlled by staff members of the birthing unit.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".