Parents' Views to Strengthen Partnerships in Newborn Intensive Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Parental involvement in their newborn's neonatal intensive care reduces stress and helps with the parent-child attachment, transition to home, and future development. However, parents' perspectives are not often sought or considered when adapting family-centered care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Aim:To identify what parents believe helps or hinders their involvement in their newborn's care when admitted to our Level 3B NICU. Methods:Between August and October 2018, nine mothers and one father were interviewed during three 60- to 90-min audiotaped focus groups using a semi-structured interview tool. From the content analysis of the verbatims, three reviewers identified key themes that affected how involved parents could be in their newborn's care. Results:Parents provided examples of factors that facilitated or restricted their involvement. The analysis identified themes: (1) parent-staff interactions, (2) supportive/trustworthy healthcare professionals, (3) consistency in care and caring staff, (4) family, couple, and peer support, (5) newborn status, (6) resources and education for parents, (7) the NICU environment, and (8) academic and research participation. Conclusion:We identified a conceptual framework to allow our NICU team to prioritize working strategies to strengthen parental involvement in newborn care. In addition to implementing ways to involve parents, we need to address parents' satisfaction with their participation. These findings may help other investigators explore parents' expectations toward their NICU experience.
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 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".