Providing support to siblings of hospitalised children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe child life services provided to siblings of hospitalised children and the resources associated with these services in major paediatric hospitals throughout the United States (U.S.) and Canada. Cross-sectional data on sibling support services and resources needed for capacity building were collected via a web-based survey from administrative and clinical practice leads in identified Child Life Departments. The 34-item survey targeted three domains: Facility Demography, Sibling Support Resources, and Capacity Building and Funding. Surveys were sent to 217 leads and 109 responded (50% response rate). Of the 109 respondents, 48% indicated their facilities provided sibling support including grief or palliative support (90% of facilities) and therapeutic play (94% of facilities). More than 50% indicated that these services were not evaluated for improved family or sibling outcomes. Twenty-six percent of the respondents indicated having monies earmarked for sibling support from the following sources: hospital budget (34%), private donation (25%), foundation (22%), other (14%) and government (4%). There was a significant relationship between respondents who indicated sibling support services and funding (chi(2)= 0.0001). Resources identified included staff availability and funding as needed for sibling support capacity building. Given the limited sibling support available in major paediatric hospitals across the U.S. and Canada, hospitals with existing resources should act as exemplars and evaluate the impact of their services with clear dissemination to other facilities. In addition to defining service effectiveness, this evaluation can help to determine the most fiscally responsible ways to deliver sibling support in their established facilities and others.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".