MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3142642434 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-63533/v1

Father's Experiences During the Stay of the Premature Baby in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU): A Systematic Review Protocol

2020· review· en· W3142642434 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
ZulyKatherine Garnica-Torres, Greicyani Brarymi Dias, Janari da Silva Pedroso

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal do ParáPró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação, Universidade Federal do ParáCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsNeonatal intensive care unitMedicineProtocol (science)Intensive care medicineIntensive carePediatricsAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: This systematic review aims to understand the father's experience in the neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) while accompanying his premature baby. Prematurity rates are increasing; every year, millions of parents faced having their premature baby hospitalized in NICU without being prepared to face this situation. It is relevant to talk about how fathers feel with the experience of being parents of premature babies. The father-baby attachment is affected by prematurity, thus performing the kangaroo care method with the active participation of the father is vital to promote the attachment between the dyad. Method: The authors will include original father-centered research articles, with measurements made in the NICU. Databases included articles from 2010 to 2020, are APA PsycNet, BVS, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. CENTRAL). Two researchers will extract the data and evaluate the quality of each study through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and references will be managed in the Mendeley software. This review will not perform a meta-analysis, results will be presented in a qualitative narrative synthesis that includes all the data found.Discussion: This review will contribute to the construction of evidence about the father's experience in the neonatal intensive care unit, as well as how attachment develops between the baby and the father in this field and how the kangaroo care method promotes attachment in this dyad. Ethics and disseminationThis is a protocol for a systematic review, therefore, no approval from an ethics committee is required. We will submit the article to a peer-reviewed health journal, and the results will be published in congresses focused on neonatal, child, and psychological health.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019142086

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.016
Bibliometrics0.0190.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.005

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicInfant Development and Preterm Care→French-language works237,207→