Family Experiences With Feeding Tubes in Neurologic Impairment: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes) are frequently used to provide enteral nutrition for children who have neurologic impairment. Understanding the impact of G-tubes from the family's perspective will inform decision-making and improve support from health care providers. This study explored the experiences of families after G-tube placement in children with neurologic impairment. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of English-language qualitative primary research studies describing family experiences after G-tube placement. Six electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2014. Two authors independently screened and identified relevant studies, evaluated quality of reporting by using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research tool, and extracted data. Overarching concepts were developed by using thematic analysis. RESULTS: From 2674 screened abstracts, 84 texts were reviewed, and 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. G-tubes affect the lives of children, parents, and the family unit in many ways, both positive and negative. Improvements and challenges were described for children's health and happiness, for parental caregiving and stress, and for logistics and bonding within the family. G-tube feeding also changed relationships within the family, between the family and the medical system, and between the family and the outside world. Furthermore, experiences varied, with different families framing similar concepts as positive and negative. CONCLUSIONS: G-tube placement has diverse effects on daily life for children with neurologic impairment and their families. Clinicians may use the themes identified in this study to guide conversations with families about their values, experiences, and expectations before and after G-tube placement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".