MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3160794410

Pre and postnatal Down syndrome determinations: An investigation of past experiences and potential improvements

2021· dissertation· en· W3160794410 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah L. Sangster

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2021
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueFamily and Disability Support Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyMedicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The experience of receiving a Down syndrome (DS) determination in Canada has not been thoroughly explored. The purpose of this research project was to shed light on the experiences of Canadians receiving pre- or post- natal DS determinations in order to analyze the extent to which they align with best practice recommendations. Thirty-two narrative interviews were conducted with 42 participants (10 couples and 22 individuals). Participants relayed their story of receiving their child’s or a prospective child’s DS determination. Interviews were analyzed thematically with a focus on the explicit content of the participants’ stories. Participants’ stories often spanned from the time they were considering having children up to present day. Many parents and prospective parents relayed dissatisfaction with their determination experience. Experiences with prenatal screening suggested a lack of informed consent and subsequent difficulty interpreting the probabilities presented to them as a result of screening. Participants’ stories illustrated that their care providers were often non-neutral, and applied implicit or explicit pressure about screening, testing, and termination decisions. When they received their determinations, participants tended to be dissatisfied with the duration of their consultations, dissatisfied with receiving the determination without their partner present, dissatisfied with the lack of up-to date information provided to them and dissatisfied with their care provider’s communication skills for delivering the news. Participants reported being avoided by care providers when their baby was born and noted a lack of celebration upon the birth of their child. Parents also relayed stories about care providers whom they described as “fantastic”, “great” and “lovely”. Parents were satisfied with determinations that involved a neutral reassuring tone throughout which the baby was present and at the center of the discussion. Participants appreciated a thorough explanation of the indicators under consideration and their fallibility. They were satisfied with quiet, private, consultations wherein all of their questions were addressed, the next steps were explained, and the care provider stayed until it felt like there was a conclusion to their conversation and their questions. Most participants initially experienced negative emotional reactions to their child’s determination. Many attributed their reaction to the lack of knowledge they had about DS and the lack of or superficial experience they had with people with DS. Several participants relayed that the most helpful information they received came from the provincial or national DS societies, but that this information often came late. A more formal relationship between support organizations and physicians who deliver the news could improve this flaw in the system. Since receiving their determinations, many participants looked back on their “journey” and framed it as simply “taking the scenic route”. However, to frame all experiences in this way would be an oversimplification. The way that families are impacted by having a member with DS is likely influenced by child, family, and societal factors, all of which interact. Some families relayed significant challenges, which they believed the dominant narrative excludes. There is not one story of DS, and therefore the task of educating prospective parents about what life with DS will be like is challenging. The best way forward may be to present parents with a range of possibilities and help families evaluate these possibilities in the context of their own lives.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,837
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,328

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,004
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,228
Écart entre enseignants0,219 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan)→Même sujetFamily and Disability Support Research→Travaux en français237 207→