MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386984347 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxad055.064

64 Consensus Practice Recommendations Regarding Parental Presence in Canadian NICUs to Inform Ongoing and Post Pandemic Policies

2023· article· en· W4386984347 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marsha Campbell‐Yeo, Fabiana Bacchini, Marc Beltempo, Lynsey Alcock, Prakesh S. Shah, Tanya Bishop, Douglas Campbell, Addie Chilcott, Jeanette Comeau, Justine Dol, Amy Grant, Jonathan B. Gubbay, Brianna Hughes, Amos Hundert, Darlene Inglis, Alanna Lakoff, Yasmin Lalani, Thuy Mai Luu, Jenna MacMorton, Souvik Mitra, Michael Narvey, Karel O’Brien, Paula Robeson, Michelle Science, Rachel Van Woezik, Leah Whitehead

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodPandemicHealth careIntensive careInclusion (mineral)DelphiMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Family medicinePsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction/Background In March 2020, parental presence restriction policies were introduced in Canadian NICUs as institutions aimed to prevent COVID-19 transmission during the emerging global pandemic. However, parental presence in NICUs is necessary for maximizing parent and infant health outcomes, and there continues to be significant variation in parental restriction across Canadian NICUs. Objectives To identify the impact of parental restriction policies in Canadian NICUs on parents, infants, and healthcare providers and co-create practice recommendations for ongoing pandemic management and post-pandemic policies. Design/Methods A national survey was conducted to assess the impact of Canadian NICU restriction policies. Recommendations were developed through Delphi and Values and Preferences research methods. For the first Delphi survey, participants rated 50 items of importance from the national survey on a scale from 1 (very low importance) to 5 (very high). On the second Delphi survey, participants ranked the top 20 items from highest relative to lowest importance. A literature review was conducted for the top 10 items, and evidence of known benefits and harms was presented to the panel of decision-makers during the Values and Preferences consensus meetings. Participants voted on the inclusion of each item as a national recommendation and discussed additional caveats. A vote of 80% or more was deemed a consensus. Results Parents (n=426) and healthcare providers (n=205) completed a national survey, from which a list of reported impacts was derived. After two separate Delphi rounds (n=39, and n=20), a series of 10 recommendations with the highest rated importance were identified. A representative panel of decision-makers (n=20), including parents of NICU infants, NICU healthcare providers and managers, and infectious disease and public health policy-makers, took part in a Values and Preferences task. Items of importance included 7 strong recommendations (parents as essential caregivers, providing skin-to-skin contact, direct or mothers’ own expressed milk feeding, attending medical rounds, mental health and psychosocial services access, food and drink access, and inclusion of parent partners in pandemic response planning) and 6 conditional recommendations (providing hands-on care tasks, touch, two parents present at the same time, use of communication devices, and in-person access to medical rounds and mental health and psychosocial services). Consensus was reached on all items in favour of inclusion in national recommendations for Canadian NICUs. Conclusion These recommendations will guide ongoing and future pandemic management and policies with respect to parental presence and involvement in their infants’ care.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.140
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.173
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1400.173
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0080.011
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicChild and Adolescent Health→French-language works237,207→