ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Neonatal Twin Cobedding: A Mixed Method Study of Policy, Practice and Staff Perceptions in Australia.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore neonatal unit policy and practice, and neonatal healthcare workers' experiences, beliefs and perceptions of twin cobedding in Australia. DESIGN AND
methodsA two-part convergent mixed methods design was used. Part 1 data were collected via an online survey of neonatal units. Part 2 data were collected by focus groups and interviews with healthcare workers. Findings were integrated to create final results.
results21 neonatal units, and 17 healthcare workers participated in this study. Significant variations in twin cobedding practices were reported within and across neonatal units. Practice variation was influenced by several interlinked factors, captured in four themes: (1) Policy-Driven Practitioners in a Policy Vacuum; (2) Evidence, Knowledge and Education; (3) Personal Beliefs and Practice Observations; and (4) "The Parent Owns that Baby"-Being Family-Centred.
conclusionsDue to widespread practice and policy variations, and a lack of evidence-based education for staff, healthcare workers appear to be making individual decisions regarding cobedding practice, potentially creating confusion for twin families navigating care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Improvements to twin cobedding practice education are needed to enable clinicians to support twin families in their care. Separation of twins in neonatal units needs to be addressed, regardless of twin cobedding practice. Research identifying benefits and any potential risks of twin cobedding practice is required. IMPACT: Neonatal healthcare workers are policy-driven practitioners who value clear evidence and education to confidently support the families in their care. It is important that evidence-based guidelines for twin cobedding are developed to support them in family-centred clinical practice. REPORTING
methodMMAT guidelines were used to prepare this manuscript. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.