The Experience of Mothers Whose Very Low Birth Weight Infant Requires Supplemental Oxygen in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study examines the experience of mothers whose very low birth weight (VLBW) infants require supplemental oxygen during their hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).Subjects: Eleven mothers of VLBW infants who have received supplemental oxygen in the NICU for a minimum of 7 days were selected for interview.Design: Qualitative descriptive.Methods: One semi-structured interview exploring mothers' experiences surrounding oxygen supplementation was conducted.Qualitative content analysis was undertaken to describe mothers' experience.Principle Results: Four themes emerged: oxygen is a positive, worries about the adverse effects for my baby now and in the future, oxygen supplementation has been a learning experience, and oxygen is a barrier to mothering.Conclusion: Mothers balanced the positive aspects of oxygen supplementation with their fears of the negative consequences.They are able to adapt to the equipment and trajectory of having their infant on supplemental oxygen.Mothers were particularly distressed by the physical barriers created by oxygen supplementation (i.e., unable to hold, hear, or see their baby).Nurses in the NICU should support mothers' positive reframing as a way of coping, provide education and about the consequences of this therapy, encourage mothers to touch and hold their infants, and provide opportunities for them to see their infant's face.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".