Child and family health nurses’ roles in the care of infants and children: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child and family health nurses (CFHNs) work in a variety of settings with families to promote optimal growth and development in infants and children from birth to 5 years. Literature is available about models of care that CFHNs use in their work, but there is limited information about how CFHNs enact care specifically for infants and children. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and contextualize existing knowledge of how CFHNs, both in Australia and internationally, care for infants and children. Arksey and O'Malley’s (2005) framework was used to review 27 studies from Australia, Sweden, Finland, United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark and Canada. It was identified that CFHNs, equipped with a range of assessment tools for early intervention and health promotion, use a partnership approach when working with parents to promote the health and well-being of infants and children. The literature revealed the complexity of the roles undertaken by CFHNs when caring for infants and children. Review findings indicated that CFHNs’ work is distinctive because it is conducted in home and community settings, is relational and salutogenic in nature and is also located in the domain of preventative health and early intervention.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".