IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i17-18p3117-3139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parents' and nurses' experiences of partnership in neonatal intensive care units: A qualitative review and meta‐synthesis

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Brødsgaard
  • Jette Thise Pedersen
  • Palle Larsen
  • Janne Weis

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore how parents and nurses experience partnership in neonatal intensive care units and to identify existing barriers and facilitators to a successful partnership. Background Family‐centred care is recommended as a frame of reference for treatment and care in neonatal intensive care units. A key element in family‐centred care is partnership. Such partnerships are characterised by complex interpersonal relationships and interactions between nurses and parents/families. Partnerships therefore appear to present a significant challenge. Design A qualitative review and meta‐synthesis. Methods Comprehensive searching in ten databases: CINAHL, PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus and SweMed+, OpenGrey, MedNar, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Global. A total of 1,644 studies (after removal of duplicates) were critically assessed, and 21 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A meta‐aggregation was used to synthesise the findings from the studies and was methodically quality assessed with QUARI/SUMARI and PRISMA. Findings Through a meta‐aggregative approach, two synthesised findings were developed: (a) co‐creation of mutual knowledge and (b) developing competencies and negotiating roles. The first synthesis embraced the categories: being respected and listened to, trust and sharing knowledge, and the second synthesis embraced the categories: space to learn with guidance, encouraging and enabling, being in control. In constructing the categories, findings were identified as characteristics, barriers and facilitators to application. Conclusion A successful relationship between parents and nurses can be achieved through co‐creation of mutual knowledge and development of competencies and negotiation of roles. Neonatal intensive care unit nurses are in a position where they exercise power, but they can change the culture if they are aware of what seems to facilitate or create a barrier to a partnership with parents. Relevance to clinical practice This new evidence may inform a change in policies and guidelines which could be integrated into nurses' clinical practice in neonatal intensive care units.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Brødsgaard & Jette Thise Pedersen & Palle Larsen & Janne Weis, 2019. "Parents' and nurses' experiences of partnership in neonatal intensive care units: A qualitative review and meta‐synthesis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(17-18), pages 3117-3139, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:17-18:p:3117-3139
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14920
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14920
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14920?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janne Weis & Vibeke Zoffmann & Ingrid Egerod, 2014. "Improved nurse–parent communication in neonatal intensive care unit: evaluation and adjustment of an implementation strategy," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(23-24), pages 3478-3489, December.
    2. Melanie Turner & Anna Chur‐Hansen & Helen Winefield, 2014. "The neonatal nurses' view of their role in emotional support of parents and its complexities," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(21-22), pages 3156-3165, November.
    3. Suza Trajkovski & Virginia Schmied & Margaret Vickers & Debra Jackson, 2012. "Neonatal nurses’ perspectives of family‐centred care: a qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(17‐18), pages 2477-2487, September.
    4. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    2. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    6. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    7. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    8. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    9. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    10. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    12. Nina Margrethe Kynoe & Drude Fugelseth & Ingrid Hanssen, 2020. "When a common language is missing: Nurse–mother communication in the NICU. A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(13-14), pages 2221-2230, July.
    13. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    14. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    15. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    16. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    17. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    19. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    20. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:17-18:p:3117-3139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.