Do Single-Family Rooms Increase Parental Presence, Involvement, and Maternal Well-Being in Neonatal Intensive Care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives of this study were to determine whether single-family room (SFR) design enhances parental presence, involvement, and maternal well-being during neonatal intensive care hospitalization. An observational cohort including mothers of infants was randomly assigned to receive care in a tertiary-level open-bay (OB) (n = 35) or SFR (n = 36). Mothers were asked to complete daily diaries documenting parental presence, involvement in care, and questionnaires examining maternal well-being. Mother and father mean presence (standard deviation) was significantly higher in the SFR-17.4 (5.2) and 13.6 (6.8)-compared to OB-11.9 (6.3) and 4.6 (3.7) hours/day. Total time spent in care activities did not differ for mothers, except SFR mothers spent more time expressing breast milk (EBM). SFR fathers had greater involvement with care activities. There were no other significant differences. The SFR was associated with greater maternal presence, but not greater involvement in care activities except for EBM, nor improved maternal well-being. The SFR appears to have greater impact on fathers' involvement in care and comforting activities, although the amount of time involved remained quite low compared with mothers. Further studies examining ways to enhance parental involvement in the neonatal intensive care unit are warranted.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".