Parental Autonomy in the Care of Premature Newborns and the Experience of a Neonatal Team: Observational Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The European Foundation for the Care of Newborn Infants (EFCNI) has promoted the importance of parental involvement in the care of children. Objective: The study aimed to examine how the time required by parents to achieve autonomy in the care of their very low-birth weight newborn infants was modified during the implementation of a training program. Methods: This was an observational prospective study in the context of a quality improvement initiative. The Cuídame (meaning "Take Care of Me" in English) program was aimed at achieving parental autonomy. It was implemented over 2 periods: period 1, from September 1, 2020, to June 15, 2021; and period 2, from July 15, 2021, to May 31, 2022. The days required by parents to achieve autonomy in several areas of care were collected from the electronic health system. Results: A total of 54 and 43 families with newborn infants were recruited in periods 1 and 2, respectively. Less time was required to acheive autonomy in period 2 for participation in clinical rounds (median 10.5, IQR 5-20 vs 7, IQR 4-10.5 d; P<.001), feeding (median 53.5, IQR 34-68 vs 44.5, IQR 37-62 d; P=.049), and observation of neurobehavior (median 18, IQR 9-33 vs 11, IQR 7-16 d; P=.049). More time was required to achieve autonomy for kangaroo mother care (median 14, IQR 7-23 vs 21, IQR 10-31 d; P=.02), diaper change (median 9.5, IQR 4-20 vs 14.5, IQR 9-32 d; P=.04), and infection prevention (median 1, IQR 1-2 vs 6, IQR 3-12; P<.001). Conclusions: Parents required less time to achieve autonomy for participation in clinical rounds, feeding, and observation of neurobehavior during the implementation of the training program. Nevertheless, they required more time to achieve autonomy for kangaroo mother care, diaper change, and infection prevention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".