COVID‐19 restrictions and psychological well‐being of fathers with infants admitted to NICU—An exploratory cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on the caregiving activities and psychological well-being of fathers with infants admitted to neonatal units. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using adapted COPE-IS and COPE-IU tools. Participants' recruitment occurred online via social media and parents' associations. Online survey in English, French and Italian were distributed and promoted via websites and social media platforms of parent's associations. The study was undertaken across 12 countries in Asia, Australia, Africa and Europe. RESULTS: A total of 108 fathers of NICU infants completed the survey. COVID-19 related restrictions were categorised into 3 types: no restrictions, partial and severe restrictions. Fathers who experienced partial restrictions reported more involvement in caregiving activities but high levels of emotional difficulties and sleeping problems compared to those who experienced full or no restrictions. CONCLUSION: Given the impact on the psychological well-being of fathers, restrictions should be avoided as much as possible in the neonatal unit and fathers given free access to their infants if they follow appropriate infection control precautions.
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".