Factors Influencing Parents' Perception of Their Infants' Transition From a 6-Bed Pod to Single Family Room in a Mixed-Room Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), infants and their families undergo multiple transitions, and these have been found to be a source of stress for families. Although mixed-room NICU designs allow for infants to benefit from different room types as their needs evolve during their stay, these can necessitate a transfer from one room type to another, which represents a transition for families. As some NICUs change to mixed-room designs, there is a need to better understand the factors impacting these particular transitions from the perception of parents. PURPOSE: Examine parent perceptions of factors affecting the transition from a 6-bed pod to single family room in a mixed-room design NICU. METHODS: Using a qualitative descriptive design, semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 parents whose infant had transitioned from a 6-bed pod to single family room. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and then analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Four categories of factors were identified: (1) framing, timing, and comprehensiveness of information provided by staff regarding the transition; (2) parents' perception of advantages and disadvantages of the new space; (3) parent's own well-being and quality of support from staff; and (4) parent's previous NICU and parenting experience. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Staff should frame the information they provide about this transition in a positive way to help parents adjust. A family-centered approach should also be used to provide tailored information and support to individual families. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Future studies are needed into intraunit transfers including sources of support for parents, as well as staff perceptions of these transitions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".