Emotional Closeness Among NICU Fathers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The unique perspective of fathers with an infant in the neonatal unit on the development of emotional closeness toward their infant is not well understood. The purpose of this study is to explore experiences and instances of emotional closeness from the perspective of fathers as well as factors influencing emotional closeness during an infant's hospitalization in the neonatal unit. Methods: This qualitative descriptive study employed one-on-one interviews with fathers recruited in a level 3 neonatal unit. The interview data were analyzed with thematic analysis, and emerging themes and subthemes were organized according to dimensional analysis. Results: Eight fathers agreed to take part in this study. According to the participants, emotional closeness was a complex process composed of multiple dimensions. More specifically, emotional closeness was a difficult-to-describe, mixed, and growing feeling influenced by multiple factors such as the environment, co-parenting, and the father–infant relationship. It occurred in the contexts of presence and separation in the neonatal unit and was part of the development of the father–infant relationship. Implications for Practice: The results presented in this article are important for neonatal intensive care unit nurses who support fathers in the development of their fathering role. By knowing more about the process and dimensions of emotional closeness, nurses can direct their interventions with fathers to enhance emotional closeness and better understand their experience. Implications for Research: No previous study has addressed emotional closeness as a complex process with multiple components like the current study. These findings contribute to our understanding of the process of emotional closeness for fathers.
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".