Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Integrating parents into the care of their infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is vital for both parents and infants. Yet, parents are often not fully involved in important decision-making and care, even when practices are family- and patient-centered. Alberta Family Integrated Care (FICare) is a model of care designed to support integration of parents into their infant's care. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe and examine how mothers' work was coordinated by institutional processes when participating in Alberta FICare. METHODS: We used institutional ethnography to analyze written entries in Alberta FICare parent journals to show points of tension mothers experienced in the NICU. RESULTS: We illustrated the institutional activities that intersect with parental work of being present in the NICU. We argue that the journal text and the primary discourses that mothers are tuned to organize the way they knew and thought about their infant. Managing everyday NICU rules, navigating constant and unexpected changes, and the work of feeding their infant created tension. Mothers focused on milk supply, weight gain, and transition from gavage to nipple feeds. We show how mothers' activities were coordinated by practices that prioritize progression toward discharge rather than supporting them through the roller coaster of emotions and practical challenges of being present in the NICU. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This illustration of institutional systems and processes may assist practitioners to understand the barriers mothers face when caring for their infants in the NICU.
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".