ArticleJournal of global health2025
Person- and family-centred care in neonatology: a scoping review to identify existing definitions, models of care, and related categories of interventions.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Core Outcome Set for Family-Centered Care in Neonatal Intensive Care Settings: An International eDelphi Study and Online Consensus Meeting.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Newborn and family-centered care: a scoping review on related newborn rights and principles.Journal of global health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Person- and family-centred care in the field of neonatology (N&FCC) are promoted by many international agencies and scientific societies because of evidence-based benefits for infants, parents and health systems; however, being very broad and evolving concepts, they have not been uniformly defined in operational terms. We conducted a scoping review of literature relevant to N&FCC with the objectives of synthetising: 1) existing definitions; 2) models of care; 3) categories of interventions suggested by each model of care. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for articles and/or grey literature published until 5 February 2024. For each objective, we considered articles and/or other documents, for any type of newborn. Results: The searches yielded 10 771 records. A total of 91 documents were deemed eligible for inclusion. We identified 40 relevant definitions and 28 different models of care of N&FCC. Both definitions and models of care were categorised in four macro-groups, based on their main focus: newborn and developmental care, parental participation to care, no separation between mother-baby, and miscellanea. Out of the 28 models of care, a total of 51 categories of interventions were identified, with a variable number (range 2-17) reported per each model. These were grouped in five macro-categories: individualised neonatal health care; organisation of care, human resources and policies; physical resources; health professionals (HPs) capacity strengthening and support; family empowerment and support. While most models included individualised neonatal care and family empowerment interventions, HPs were frequently neglected as beneficiaries of the intervention: only 11 models incorporated HPs capacity strengthening, only three proposed a wider support for HPs. Conclusions: We identified and synthetised numerous definitions, models, and categories of interventions, highlighting the need for further conceptualisation and standardisation around the concept of N&FCC, including the perspective from low-middle income countries', and from both parents and staff involved in care.
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.