The holding of an infant with ventral skin-to-skin contact typically in an upright position with the swaddled infant on the chest of the parent, is commonly referred to as kangaroo care (KC), due to its simulation of marsupial care. It is recommended that KC, as a feasible, natural, and cost-effective intervention, should be standard of care in the delivery of quality health care for all infants, regardless of geographic location or economic status. Numerous benefits of its use have been reported related to mortality, physiological (thermoregulation, cardiorespiratory stability), behavioral (sleep, breastfeeding duration, and degree of exclusivity) domains, as an effective therapy to relieve procedural pain, and improved neurodevelopment. Yet despite these recommendations and a lack of negative research findings, adoption of KC as a routine clinical practice remains variable and underutilized. Furthermore, uncertainty remains as to whether continuous KC should be recommended in all settings or if there is a critical period of initiation, dose, or duration that is optimal. This review synthesizes current knowledge about the benefits of KC for infants born preterm, highlighting differences and similarities across low and higher resource countries and in a non-pain and pain context. Additionally, implementation considerations and unanswered questions for future research are addressed.

No abstract

No abstract

Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles. Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization). Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012. Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (n = 11), NP-transition (n = 5), NP-inpatient (n = 2), CNS-outpatient (n = 11), CNS-transition (n = 13), and CNS-inpatient (n = 1). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity. Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.