Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39553409›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2024

Factors contributing to implementation of a father-friendly neonatal intensive care unit in Denmark.

Betty Noergaard, Karin Yde Waidtløw, Poul-Erik Kofoed, Signe Valkvist

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Betty NoergaardDepartment of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Lillebaelt Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Sygehusvej 24, 6000 Kolding, Denmark.
Karin Yde WaidtløwCentre for Research in Patient Communication, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark.
Poul-Erik KofoedDepartment of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Lillebaelt Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Sygehusvej 24, 6000 Kolding, Denmark.
Signe ValkvistDepartment of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Lillebaelt Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Sygehusvej 24, 6000 Kolding, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Although family-centred care (FCC) is recommended in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), barriers still exist. This study aimed to identify and understand and nurse-related factors contributing to the implementation of a father-friendly NICU (FF-NICU). Methods: Eleven pre- and post-implementation focus groups were conducted with 21 nurses. Data were analysed using meaning condensation. Results: Four pre-implementation themes emerged: 1) fathers' limited presence, 2) worries, vulnerability, and emotions, 3) types of fathers, and 4) involvement of fathers.Eight themes contributed to the implementation of FF-NICU: 1) Advantage for the infant/family, 2) Presence of fathers, 3) Less work for the nurses, 4) Daily work routines, 5) Taking something from the mother, 6) Different approaches, 7) Creativity and flexibility, and 8) Implementation process. Conclusion: Important for the implementation of FF-NICU were that the change was necessary, advantageous for the nurses, and beneficial for the families. Still, nurses needed to be flexible and creative in the care of the fathers/families. Innovation: This study focused on fathers - an underexposed target group. Examining key factors for those executing the intervention and discussing the findings using the theoretical framework of John P. Kotter's implementation strategy, we contribute to a better understanding of implementation processes.

Indexed as

Family-Centred careFatherImplementationIntensive care unitNeonatalParent

Identifiers

PMID39553409
PMCPMC11567936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.