Exploration of trust between pediatric nurses and children with a medical diagnosis and their caregivers on inpatient care units: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM: Trust is central to the development of nurse-patient relationships. Pediatric nurses encounter difficulties developing trust with children and their caregivers. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify, examine, and summarize available evidence on the concept of trust among nurses and children/caregivers when admitted to hospital inpatient care units. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for conducing and reporting scoping reviews, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane DSR, Cochrane Central, and JBI EBP were searched for qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and review studies with no time limits published in English. Included studies presented findings on the experiences of developing trust between pediatric nurses and children under 18 years of age and their caregivers within inpatient care units. RESULTS: A total of 12,269 titles and abstracts were reviewed independently by two reviewers. 366 full-text articles were retrieved, a final of 81 studies were included in the review. CONCLUSIONS: Trust was bi-directional between nurses and children/caregivers, developed over time during multiple interactions, and foundational to the development of relationships. Distinct facilitators and barriers to the development of trust between nurses and children/caregivers were identified. The development of trust was rewarding and enriching for both nurses and children/caregivers and was the fundamental to the provision of safe and high-quality nursing care. IMPLICATIONS: Findings provide nurses with direction and strategies on how to develop and maintain trust with children/caregivers on inpatient care units. The development of training programs and interventions geared at equipping nurses with the skills to develop trust with children/caregivers is needed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".