Factors Associated with Parental Satisfaction with a Pediatric Crisis Clinic (PCC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Little is known about parental satisfaction with pediatric crisis clinics (PCCs) that provide a single consultation to families in need of urgent psychiatric care. Parental satisfaction may improve long-term adherence to physician recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To explore parental satisfaction with a PCC. METHODS: Parental satisfaction was ascertained by a structured telephone interview following crisis consultation at the PCC of an academic, tertiary care centre. METHODS: Parents of 71% (n = 124) of 174 pediatric patients seen in the PCC from 2007-2008 participated in the post-consultation interview. RESULTS: The majority of parents stated they were either somewhat satisfied (49/122, 40.2%) or very satisfied (49/122, 40.2%) with the PCC. Parental satisfaction correlated with time between referral and consultation (p<0.05), the degree to which parents felt listened to by the consultant (p<0.01), the amount of psychoeducation parents felt they received (p<0.01), and appointment length (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Parents were satisfied overall with an urgent care service model. Satisfaction was correlated with the time between referral and consultation, degree to which they felt their consultant had listened to them, and the amount of information they received at the consultation's conclusion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".