Attitudes and concerns of neonatologists and nurses to family- integrated-care in neonatal intensive care units in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parents in China are denied visitation of their newborns in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), leading to a prolonged period of parent-infant separation. The family-integrated care (FICare) model, which supports the integration of parents into the NICU team, is gradually being introduced in China. Considering resistance to the implementation of FICare, this study aimed to assess the attitudes and concerns of neonatologists and nurses towards FICare in China. Methods: Using a before and after study design, a qualitative analysis was conducted to determine the perceptions and attitudes of medical professionals towards FICare in China. A total of 34 neonatologists and 94 nurses from 5 tertiary NICUs in China were enrolled. A self-developed questionnaire was used. The study steps included reading session and then survey for the first time (survey 1), a FICare getting buy-in education session (4 hours), a group discussion session, and finally repeat the questionnaire (survey 2). The surveys were completed by trained researchers regarding willingness, acceptance and concerns of implementing FICare in NICUs in China. Differences in attitudes towards FICare were compared between groups (Chi-square/correction for continuity). Results: There are positive responses in neonatologists and nurses regarding the necessity (Survey 1: 58.8% and 57.4%; Survey 2: 88.2% and 67.0%), feasibility (Survey 1: 17.6% and 19.1%; Survey 2: 32.3% and 34.0%), and interest in joining FICare (Survey 1: 82.4% and 83.0%; Survey 2: 97.1% and 85.1%). A higher proportion of neonatologists indicated that FICare could promote breastfeeding in the NICU comparing to nurses (Survey 1: 47.1% vs. 19.1%; Survey 2: 61.8% and 46.8% respectively). Most of the neonatologists and nurses are not sure whether FICare can shorten the hospital stay (Survey 1: 82.3% and 68.1%; Survey 2: 85.3% and 60.6%) or improve the doctor-patient relationship (Survey 1: 58.8% and 68.1%; Survey 2: 73.5% and 69.1%). Challenges concerning the implementation of FICare were identified as inadequate ward space, lack of human resources, and potential increases in nosocomial infection. Conclusions: The getting buy-in education program in introducing new paradigms of neonatal care may help on how to design and implement more effective educational tools for FICare.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".