IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v30y2021i3-4p499-507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions and attitudes of parents and healthcare professionals about the option of using infant massage in neonatal intensive care units

Author

Listed:
  • Bahia Abdallah
  • Heather Whitford
  • Caroline Bradbury‐Jones
  • Martyn Jones

Abstract

Background Infant moderate pressure massage is an effective evidence‐based intervention that counters the consequences of prematurity and exposure to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) environment. This touch‐based therapy reduces physiological stress and improves physical, cognitive and neurological development in stable preterm and low birth weight (LBW) infants. Currently, little is known about the barriers and facilitators that surround its implementation. Aims This study explored the cultural, organisational and contextual factors perceived by parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs) about the option of implementing infant massage in the Lebanese context. Methods A qualitative exploratory approach informed by normalisation process theory (NPT) was used; 22 parents and 38 HCPs were recruited from three university hospitals over 7‐month period. COREQ guidelines were used to inform reporting and as a quality appraisal checklist. Framework approach was used for data analysis of the focus groups (seven with parents, six with HCPs) and non‐participant observation. The four constructs of NPT guided data collection and analysis, interpretation of the findings and understanding of the implementation issues. Findings Four themes emerged: understanding infant massage; perception of massage benefits and risks; perceived barriers for engaging in the practice of massage, and strategies to facilitate future implementation. Participants were accepting of the massage concept. However, HCPs were concerned that workload and lack of time would make implementation difficult and interfere with daily care. Both groups highlighted parental fear and anxiety, entry to NICU, and space availability as main contextual and organisational implementation barriers. Communication, gradual implementation, encouragement and support were potential facilitators perceived by parents while adequate preparation, commitment, and establishing protocol and guidelines were the identified facilitators for HCPs. Conclusion Study findings provide important insights into the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of massage to assist in future evidence‐based interventions within and beyond the Lebanese NICU context.

Suggested Citation

  • Bahia Abdallah & Heather Whitford & Caroline Bradbury‐Jones & Martyn Jones, 2021. "Perceptions and attitudes of parents and healthcare professionals about the option of using infant massage in neonatal intensive care units," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3-4), pages 499-507, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:30:y:2021:i:3-4:p:499-507
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15564
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15564?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. Dave Merryweather, 2010. "Using Focus Group Research in Exploring the Relationships between Youth, Risk and Social Position," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(1), pages 11-23, February.
    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. Martina Angela Caretta & Elena Vacchelli, 2015. "Re-Thinking the Boundaries of the Focus Group: A Reflexive Analysis on the Use and Legitimacy of Group Methodologies in Qualitative Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 20(4), pages 58-70, November.

    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:30:y:2021:i:3-4:p:499-507. 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.