For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
Inviting an author to review:
Widespread Sexual Disruption in Wild Fish
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
12
views
23
references
 Top references
cited by
23
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      56
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Supporting parents as essential care partners in neonatal units during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Aim

          To review the evidence on safety of maintaining family integrated care practices and the effects of restricting parental participation in neonatal care during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic.

          Methods

          MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to the 14th of October 2020. Records were included if they reported scientific, empirical research (qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods) on the effects of restricting or promoting family integrated care practices for parents of hospitalised neonates during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic. Two authors independently screened abstracts, appraised study quality and extracted study and outcome data.

          Results

          We retrieved 803 publications and assessed 75 full‐text articles. Seven studies were included, reporting data on 854 healthcare professionals, 442 parents, 364 neonates and 26 other family members, within 286 neonatal units globally. The pandemic response resulted in significant changes in neonatal unit policies and restricting parents' access and participation in neonatal care. Breastfeeding, parental bonding, participation in caregiving, parental mental health and staff stress were negatively impacted.

          Conclusion

          This review highlights that SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic‐related hospital restrictions had adverse effects on care delivery and outcomes for neonates, families and staff. Recommendations for restoring essential family integrated care practices are discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

          Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2010)
          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
          Article 0 comments Cited 3524 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            Derek K. Chu, Elie A. Akl, Stephanie Duda … (2020)
            Summary Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p interaction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; p interaction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.
            Article 0 comments Cited 1758 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research

              S Staniszewska, J. Brett, I Simera … (2017)
              GRIPP2 (short form and long form) is the first international guidance for reporting of patient and public involvement in health and social care research. This paper describes the development of the GRIPP2 reporting checklists, which aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base, to ensure that PPI practice is based on the best evidence
              Article 0 comments Cited 467 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Nicole R. van Veenendaal:
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0222-8132
                n.r.vanveenendaal@olvg.nl , n.r.vanveenendaal@amsterdamumc.nl
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Acta Paediatr
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Acta Paediatr
                Journal ID (doi): 10.1111/(ISSN)1651-2227
                Journal ID (publisher-id): APA
                Title: Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)
                Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                ISSN (Print): 0803-5253
                ISSN (Electronic): 1651-2227
                Publication date (Electronic): 27 May 2021
                Publication date (Print): July 2021
                Volume: 110
                Issue: 7 ( doiID: 10.1111/apa.v110.7 )
                Pages: 2008-2022
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Pediatrics/Neonatology OLVG Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 2 ] Department of Pediatrics, Emma Children's Hospital Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 3 ] Department of Neonatology Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust London UK
                [ 4 ] Canadian Premature Babies Foundation Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 5 ] Department of Pediatrics Mount Sinai Hospital Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 6 ] School of Nursing University of California San Francisco San Francisco CA USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Nicole R. van Veenendaal, Department of Pediatrics/Neonatology, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands and Department of Pediatrics, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

                Emails: n.r.vanveenendaal@ 123456olvg.nl ; n.r.vanveenendaal@ 123456amsterdamumc.nl

                [‡]

                See Table S1 for all members and affiliations

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0222-8132
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6234-5827
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0900-7749
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4291-9181
                Article
                Publisher ID: APA15857
                DOI: 10.1111/apa.15857
                PMC ID: 8250667
                PubMed ID: 33772861
                SO-VID: 29999aae-0d86-4915-a178-1eb258d6a4a8
                Copyright © © 2021 The Authors. Acta Paediatrica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation Acta Paediatrica
                License:

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                Date received : 21 February 2021
                Date accepted : 23 March 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Pages: 15, Words: 7229
                Categories
                Subject: Review Article
                Subject: Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                source-schema-version-number 2.0
                cover-date July 2021
                details-of-publishers-convertor Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.4 mode:remove_FC converted:02.07.2021

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Pediatrics
                Keywords: family integrated care,family centred care,sars‐cov‐2,covid‐19,neonatal,parent
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Pediatrics
                Keywords: family integrated care, family centred care, sars‐cov‐2, covid‐19, neonatal, parent

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content56

                See all similar

                Cited by22

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors780

                See all reference authors