MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4403978817 · doi:10.2196/65198

Parental Perspectives on Pediatric Surgical Recovery: Narrative Analysis of Free-Text Comments From a Postoperative Survey

2024· article· en· W4403978817 sur OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jessica Luo, Nicholas West, Samantha Pang, Julie M. Robillard, Patricia Page, Neil K. Chadha, Heng Gan, Lynnie Correll, R. L. Ridgway, Natasha V Broemling, Matthias Görges

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Perioperative Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePediatric Pain Management Techniques
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesMichael Smith Health Research BCBC Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital FoundationInternational Anesthesia Research Society
Mots-clésPreprintNarrativePsychologyArtComputer scienceLiteratureWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Qualitative experience data can inform health care providers how to best support families during pediatric postoperative recovery. Patient experience data can also provide actionable information to guide health care quality improvement; positive feedback can confirm the efficacy of current practices and systems, while negative comments can identify areas for improvement. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand families' perspectives regarding their children's surgical recovery using qualitative patient experience data (free-text comments) from a prospective cohort study conducted within a larger study developing a postoperative-outcome risk stratification model. METHODS: Participants were parents or guardians of children aged 0-18 years who underwent surgery at a pediatric tertiary care facility; children undergoing either outpatient or inpatient procedures were eligible to be enrolled. Participants with English as a second language were offered translational services during the consent process and were included if any family member could translate the surveys into their preferred language. Participants were ineligible if they and their families could not understand English or the child had a neurodevelopmental disability. Perioperative data were collected from families using web-based surveys, including 1 preoperative survey and follow-up surveys sent on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, 7, 15, 30, and 90. Surveys were completed until the family indicated the child was fully recovered or until postoperative day 90 was reached. Follow-up surveys included opportunities to leave free-text comments on the child's surgical experience. RESULTS: In total, 91% (453/500) of enrolled families completed at least 1 postoperative survey; 53% (242/453) provided at least 1 free-text comment and were included in the presented analysis, based on a total of 485 comments. The patient's age distribution was bimodal (modes at 2-3 and 14-15 years), with 66% (160/242) being male. Patients underwent orthopedic (60/242, 25%), urological (39/242, 16%), general (36/242,15%), otolaryngological (31/242, 13%), ophthalmological (32/242, 13%), dental (27/242, 11%), and plastic (17/242, 7%) surgeries. Largely positive comments (398/485, 82%) were made on the recovery and clinical care experience. A key theme for improvement included "communication," with subthemes highlighting parental concerns regarding the "preoperative discussions," "clarity of discharge instructions," and "continuity of care." Other themes included "length of stay" and "recovery experience." Feedback also suggested survey design amendments for future iterations of this instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting parental recovery feedback is feasible and valued by families. Findings underscored the significance of enhancing communication strategies between health care providers and parents to align expectations and support proactive family-centered care. Our postoperative surveys allowed families to provide actionable suggestions for improving their experience, which may not have been considered during their hospital encounter. Our longitudinal survey protocol may be expanded to support continuous quality improvement initiatives involving near-real-time patient feedback to improve the health care experience of patients and families.

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)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,059
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 enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,057

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,059
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
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 Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,344
Écart entre enseignants0,320 · 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

Citations3
Publié2024
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Perioperative MedicineMême sujetPediatric Pain Management TechniquesTravaux en français237 207