Implementation Outcomes and Challenges of Partnerships between Resource Parents and Parents with Sick Infants in Intensive Neonatal Care Units: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents with a sick child in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) usually experience stress, anxiety, and vulnerability. These precarious feelings can affect early parent–child interactions and have consequences for the child’s neurodevelopment. Parents who have had a sick child in an NICU (veteran parents) can offer helpful interventions for these vulnerable families. This article is a scoping review of parental interventions used with the families of NICU infants, and an overview of French perspectives. Two independent reviewers studied the scientific literature published in English between 2001 to 2021 using Covidence software. The databases used were MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, the Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar. Themes were identified from the articles’ results using an open coding approach. The data are presented in a narrative format. Ten articles were included, and four major themes addressed: (1) description of activities, (2) recommendations, (3) impact, and (4) barriers (resulting from recruitment, training, remuneration, and organization). Activities were very diverse, and a step-by-step implementation was recommended by all authors. Peer-support interventions might be a potential resource for those anxious parents and improve their NICU experiences. These challenges are described by SOS Préma in France. This article brings together recent studies on partnership in the NICU. It is an innovative topic in neonatology with vast issues to explore.
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 | 0.021 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".