Parents and Health Care Providers' Perspectives on Vital Signs Monitoring Technologies in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: An International Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the views of parents and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) health care providers (HCPs) on current wired vital signs monitoring and future wireless alternatives.Prospective cross-sectional survey was conducted between March and July 2023, targeting three groups: (1) NICU parents, (2) physicians, and (3) nurses and respiratory therapists (RT) and physiotherapists (PT). A 17-question survey was developed to assess several perspectives with current vital signs monitoring and a possible wireless monitoring system. NICU parents completed paper surveys and HCPs participated via an anonymous electronic survey. The original English survey was tailored for different respondent groups, translated into French, Spanish, and Portuguese, and distributed through neonatal research networks. Responses from each group were analyzed as totals (%), with within-group comparisons assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Additionally, between-group comparisons were conducted using the chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.A total of 1,141 responses were included (25 parents, 438 physicians, and 678 nurses, RTs, and PTs). Only 52% of parents were satisfied with current wired systems; 68% reported wires hindered infant handling, and 52% cited interference with skin-to-skin care. Both physicians and HCPs expressed low satisfaction with the current system. Common concerns included tangling, skin irritation, and workload. Support for wireless technology introduction was high across all groups (parents = 60%, physicians = 91%, and nurses, RTs, and PTs = 87%), with main perceived benefits including improved kangaroo mother care (KMC), reduced patient discomfort, and enhanced bonding. All groups expressed accuracy, safety, battery life, and cost concerns of a possible wireless system.Parents and HCPs are generally dissatisfied with the current NICU vital signs monitoring systems, primarily due to concerns with wires and cables and interference with KMC. Wireless technologies were mostly supported, but data on reliability, safety, and economic feasibility will be critical for development and successful implementation. · Parents and HCPs dislike wired systems due to tangling, skin irritation, and interference with care.. · Support for wireless monitoring was viewed positively by parents and very positively by HCP.. · Wireless systems were seen as beneficial for KC, reducing patient discomfort, and improving bonding.. · However, each group expressed concerns about a potential future wireless monitoring system.. · Accuracy, battery life, radiation, and cost must be addressed before wireless systems can be adopted..
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".