Does parental presence affect workload during neonatal resuscitation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parents often prefer being present during neonatal resuscitation and benefit from this experience. We aim to determine if parental presence during neonatal resuscitation affects the perceived workload of healthcare providers. METHODS: Perceived workload was measured using the multidimensional retrospective National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index survey. Over 3 months, healthcare providers were asked to complete a paper and pencil survey following their participation in a neonatal resuscitation. Surveys also collected healthcare providers' reports of parental presence during resuscitation. RESULTS: 204 surveys were completed. Of these 183 (90%) had complete information about parental presence. Overall workload of healthcare professionals was significantly lower when at least one parent was present (33; 16-47) compared with when no parents were present (46; 29-57) during the resuscitation (p=0.0004). CONCLUSION: This work supports the presence of parents during neonatal resuscitation. Parental presence during neonatal resuscitation was associated with decreased overall workload experienced by healthcare providers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".