The evolution of family‐centered care: From supporting parent‐delivered interventions to a model of family integrated care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing recognition that parents play a critical role in promoting the health outcomes of low birthweight and preterm infants. Despite a large body of literature on interventions and models to support family engagement in infant care, parent involvement in the delivery of care for such infants is still restricted in many neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). In this article, we propose a taxonomy for classifying parent-focused NICU interventions and parent-partnered care models to aid researchers, clinical teams, and health systems to evaluate existing and future approaches to care. The proposed framework has three levels: interventions to support parents, parent-delivered interventions, and multidimensional models of NICU care that explicitly incorporate parents and partners in the care of their preterm or low birthweight infant. We briefly review the available evidence for interventions at each level and highlight the strong level of research evidence to support the parent-delivered intervention of skin-to-skin contact (also known as the Kangaroo Care position) and for the Kangaroo mother care and family integrated care models of NICU care. We suggest directions for future research and model implementation to improve and scale-up parent partnership in the care of NICU infants.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".