Considerations for Practice in Supporting Parental Bereavement in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit—a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parental bereavement after the death of an infant in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is a complex and nuanced experience. Support from healthcare practitioners can have a significant impact on bereavement experiences in the short- and long-term. Although several studies exist exploring parental perceptions of their experience of loss and bereavement, there has not been a recent review of beneficial practices and common themes in the current literature. OBJECTIVE: This review synthesizes empirical research to identify considerations that ought to guide the caregiving practices of healthcare professionals to support parental bereavement. SETTINGS/SUBJECTS: Data was collected from studies identified in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. The search was limited to English-language studies describing parental bereavement in the NICU population from January 1990 to November 2021. RESULTS: Of 583 studies initially identified, 47 studies of varying geographic locations were included in this review. Various themes surrounding healthcare support in parental bereavement were identified including ensuring the opportunity for parents to spend time caring for their child, understanding their perception of infant suffering, recognizing the impact of communication experiences with healthcare providers, and offering access to alternative means of support, all of which have been described as suboptimal. Parents generally want the opportunity to say goodbye to their infant in a private and safe space, be supported through their decision-making and be offered bereavement follow-up after loss. CONCLUSION: This review identifies methods of support in parental bereavement based on first-hand parental experiences and routine implementation of these strategies may be beneficial in supporting parents through their bereavement after the loss of a baby in the NICU.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".