Practice recommendations regarding parental presence in NICUs during pandemics caused by respiratory pathogens like COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To co-create parental presence practice recommendations across Canadian NICUs during pandemics caused by respiratory pathogens such as COVID-19. Methods Recommendations were developed through evidence, context, Delphi and Values and Preferences methods. For Delphi 1 and 2, participants rated 50 items and 20 items respectively on a scale from 1 (very low importance) to 5 (very high). To determine consensus, evidence and context of benefits and harms were presented and discussed within the Values and Preference framework for the top-ranked items. An agreement of 80% or more was deemed consensus. Results After two Delphi rounds (n = 59 participants), 13 recommendations with the highest rated importance were identified. Consensus recommendations included 6 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, and inclusion of parent partners in pandemic response planning) and 7 conditional recommendations (providing hands-on care tasks, providing touch, two parents present at the same time, food and drink access, use of communication devices, and in-person access to medical rounds and mental health and psychosocial services). Conclusion These recommendations can guide institutions in developing strategies for parental presence during pandemics caused by respiratory pathogens like COVID-19
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 | 0.044 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".