Parent Perceptions of Transitioning From a 6-Bed Pod to a Single Family Room in a Mixed-Room Design NICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As some neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) shift toward mixed-room designs, with different room types available throughout family's stays, there is a need to better understand parent perceptions of this transition. METHODS: This study used a qualitative descriptive design to describe parent perceptions of transitioning from a 6-bed pod to a single family room in a mixed-room design NICU. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 10 mothers and 7 fathers who were regularly present on the unit before and after the transition. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted a minimum of 2 days after the transition occurred. Interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Four themes were identified: going into the unknown; approaching the finish line; becoming comfortable in the new reality and seeing the benefits; and gaining autonomy and confidence in parenting. CONCLUSION: These results further our understanding of the transition process from a 6-bed pod to a single-family room for parents in the NICU. Staff should be sensitized to this experience to provide tailored information and support for parents throughout the transition.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".