MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Parental perceptions of the informed consent process in pediatric bone marrow transplantation (BMT)

2004· article· en· W149133153 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jubilee Benedict, Christy Simpson, Conrad V. Fernandez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformed consentMedicineAnxietyFeelingFamily medicinePhonePediatricsPsychiatryPsychologyAlternative medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6123 Background: The validity of informed consent in pediatric bone marrow transplantation (BMT) may be compromised by the complexity of information provided and the emotional duress under which it occurs. Anecdotal evidence suggests parents feel compelled to consent to BMT on behalf of their child. The purpose of this study was: 1. to determine if parents perceive there to be a real/actual choice when consenting to pediatric BMT, 2. to survey parental experience of the informed consent process, and 3. to determine if the informed consent process affects parental hope, anxiety, stress or guilt. Methods: An information package and informed consent document were mailed to 67 English-speaking parents of 34 children who underwent BMT. They were all prepared for transplant by one physician using a standardized template at the IWK Health Centre (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) between 1998 and 2002. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by phone (13) or in person (7). Transcripts were analyzed for common themes by 2 independent reviewers. Results: Twenty parents (12 mothers and 8 fathers) of 12 children consented to participate in the study. This included five parents of three children who had died. Parental participants did not differ from eligible non-participants in indication for transplant, donor source, major complications, or death rates for their children. All subjects reported feeling they had no personal choice but to consent to BMT. Parents denied experiencing external pressure to consent. Subjects felt well prepared for potential side effects and complications; only 2 reported unexpected side effects. Parents did not report retrospectively doubting the informed consent process. All parents would consent to pediatric BMT if in the same position again. Parental hope, stress, guilt and anxiety were not reported to be affected by the informed consent process. Conclusions: Parents do not perceive a personal choice when providing consent for pediatric BMT. Regardless of outcome, parents do not retrospectively question the quality of consent they provided for pediatric BMT nor do they feel that hope, stress, guilt or anxiety are affected by the consent process. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare→French-language works237,207→