An international study on implementation and facilitators and barriers for parent‐infant closeness in neonatal units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Importance Parent‐infant closeness and active parent participation in neonatal care are important for parent and infant health. Objective To give an overview of current neonatal settings and gain an in‐depth understanding of facilitators and barriers to parent‐infant closeness, zero‐separation, in 19 countries. Methods Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) professionals, representing 45 NICUs from a range of geographic regions in Europe and Canada, were purposefully selected and interviewed June–December 2018. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify, analyze and report patterns (themes) for parent‐infant closeness across the entire series of interviews. Results Parent‐infant separation during infant and/or maternity care is very common (42/45 units, 93%), despite the implementation of family integrated care (FICare) practices, including parent participation in medical rounds (17/45, 38%), structured education sessions for parents (16/45, 36%) and structured training for healthcare professionals (22/45, 49%). NICU professionals encountered four main themes with facilitators and barriers for parent‐infant closeness on and between the hospital, unit, staff, and family level: Culture (jointly held characteristics, values, thinking and behaviors about parental presence and participation in the unit), Collaboration (the act of working together between and within different levels), Capacities (resources and policies), and Coaching (education to acquire and transfer knowledge and skills). Interpretation Implementing parent‐infant closeness in the NICU is still challenging for healthcare professionals. Further optimization in neonatal care towards zero‐separation and parent‐infant closeness can be achieved by enforcing the ‘four Cs for Closeness’: Culture, Collaboration, Capacities , and Coaching .
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".