Patterns of Parenting Confidence Among Infants With Medical Complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parenting confidence is an important factor in fostering optimal health and development of infants with medical complexity. However, our understanding of how parents of medically complex infants describe development of confidence is limited. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to describe the nature and development of parenting confidence. METHODS: A mixed-method design was used to examine how parents described their level of confidence. Ten parents of infants with medical complexity. Quantitative measures provided patterns of confidence and qualitative data focused on parent descriptions of confidence. Parents completed online surveys at 3 time points: (1) study enrollment, (2) infant discharge from hospital, and (3) 3 months after discharge. Parents were purposively sampled, using their confidence patterns, for qualitative phone interviews. RESULTS: Our analysis of quantitative findings revealed 3 confidence patterns: (1) increasing, (2) stable, and (3) varying. Parents described their confidence as either (1) a state of being confident or (2) how they behaved in the parenting role. Parents felt both certain and uncertain in their level of confidence and described confidence as being situationally dependent. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Parenting confidence needs to be cultivated through encouragement and repeated exposure to parenting behaviors. Nurses are well-suited to help identify parents with low confidence to support parents so that they can develop confidence. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Because there is variability in parent confidence during this critical early period of life, future research should consider a larger cohort of parents that compares confidence in diverse parent groups (ie, married vs living together couples, same-sex couples, and single parents). Research should also examine effective strategies to promote confidence and associated long-term health and developmental outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".