A Systematic Review of Psycho-Spiritual Interventions in the NICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of psychospiritual supports and interventions for neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) parents is unclear. PURPOSE: This systematic review examines the psychological and medical literature for psychospiritual interventions designed to support parents' mental health and psychological well-being during or after the NICU experience. DATA SOURCES: Data sources include PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) with peer-reviewed studies published between 2013 and 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Peer-reviewed studies that included spiritual and psychological intervention components focused on supporting parents during or after the NICU were included for this systematic review. There were 42 records located in 3 databases ultimately yielding 4 peer-reviewed studies that met inclusion criteria. Articles must have been written in English and evaluate parents'/caregivers' mental health/psychological well-being in relation to a psychospiritual intervention. DATA EXTRACTION: Because of the small number of studies, article summaries are provided within the results section and were written by the first author with approval by the second and third authors. RESULTS: Results indicated that when psychological (focus on coping) and spiritual components were included psychological and well-being outcomes were better for NICU parents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH: The inclusion of psychological and spiritual aspects of coping and supportive care is necessary for the best family-centered NICU care. More work needs to be done to develop psychospiritual supports and include fathers in these endeavors as most work occurs with mothers. Nurses need support and training to facilitate family-centered care with a focus on parents' psychospiritual needs.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".