Parental Experiences Caring for Their Hospitalized Medically Fragile Infants: A Description of Grief, Stress, and Coping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advances in care have increased survival and improved outcomes of infants with complex and chronic diseases. These medically fragile infants require long-term hospitalization and depend on technology for survival. Parents of these infants experience stress and difficulties adapting to their parental role. PURPOSE: To present an account of parental experiences as they provided care for their hospitalized medically fragile infant. METHODS: This study was part of a larger constructivist grounded theory study to provide a holistic understanding of the processes of care for medically fragile infants. For this sub-study, 21 parents of hospitalized medically fragile infants were recruited from a pediatric hospital in Western Canada. Parents participated in face-to-face, semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using initial and focused coding. RESULTS: Parents of hospitalized medically fragile infants grieved the loss of parenting a healthy infant, and they experienced multiple stressors. Parents utilized various coping strategies to manage their grief and stressors. Some parents were unable to cope, which exacted a heavy toll on their physical and mental health. Parents recommended psychological support, access to physical activity, primary nursing, and health system navigators. CONCLUSIONS: Parental recommendations can inform the design of interventions for parents of hospitalized medically fragile 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".