MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033613139 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100388

Hospitalising preterm infants in single family rooms versus open bay units: A systematic review and meta-analysis of impact on parents

2020· review· en· W3033613139 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole R. van Veenendaal, Anne Van Kempen, Linda S. Franck, Karel O’Brien, Jacqueline Limpens, Johanna H. van der Lee, Johannes B. van Goudoever, Sophie R. D. van der Schoor

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeonatal intensive care unitPsycINFOMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionPediatricsAnxietyMEDLINEPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Many parents develop stress-related symptoms and depression when their preterm infant is hospitalised in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) after birth. We reviewed the evidence of parent well-being with preterm infants hospitalised in single family rooms (SFRs) or in open bay neonatal units (OBUs). Methods For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) databases from inception through 22 November 2019 using controlled terms and text words related to prematurity and NICU-design. We included randomised and non-randomised studies comparing outcomes in parents with preterm infants admitted to SFRs or OBUs. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool for randomised controlled trials and the Risk of Bias Tool for Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Outcomes included: parental stress, satisfaction, participation (presence/involvement/skin-to-skin care), self-efficacy, parent-infant-bonding, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, empowerment, and degree of family-centred care. Summary estimates were calculated using random effects models with standardised mean differences (SMDs). PROSPERO registration: CRD42016050643. Findings We identified 614 unique publications. Eleven study populations (1, 850 preterm infants, 1, 549 mothers and 379 fathers) were included. All but one study were at serious to critical risk of bias. SFRs were associated with higher levels of parental presence, involvement, and skin-to-skin care. Upon discharge, SFRs were associated with lower stress levels ( n = 828 parents, SMD-0·30,95%CI -0·50;-0·09, p <0·004, I 2 =46%), specifically NICU-related stress ( n = 573, SMD-0·42,95%CI -0·61;-0·23, p <0·0001, I 2 =0%). In majority of studies higher levels of empowerment, family-centred care, and satisfaction was present with SFRs. No differences were found for anxiety, parent-infant bonding, or self-efficacy. Depression was high (up to 29%) but not different between settings. No studies described post-traumatic stress. Interpretation Single family rooms seem to facilitate parental presence, involvement, skin-to-skin care, and reduce NICU-related parental stress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.031
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.260
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207