Family centered nursing practices towards women and their families in the birthing context: A qualitative systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Synthesize qualitative evidence examining how nurses' attitudes, beliefs, and sense of efficacy and the context surrounding birth facilitate or hinder family-centered nursing practice. DESIGN: Thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, SCIENCE DIRECT, REPÈRES, CAIRN, and ÉRUDIT from October 2020 to June 2021. The PRISMA guidelines were followed, and studies were critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and Thomas and Harden's qualitative thematic synthesis method was performed for data analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Three analytical themes were generated: (1) sharing power: opposing beliefs, (2) feeling a sense of efficacy in fulfilling one's role, and (3) managing a challenging work environment. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Synthesizing nurses' experience is essential to promote implementation of favourable changes for care that is more focused on the needs of families.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".