Culturally-Sensitive Information-Sharing in Pediatric Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to learn about experiences of Mexican American and Chinese American families who require pediatric palliative care. This article describes parents' perceptions of information-sharing by health care providers during their child's hospitalizations and at their child's death. METHODS: The study used a retrospective design of grounded theory analysis. Participants included 36 parents (26 Mexican American and 10 Chinese American) from 28 families who experienced between 6 months and 5 years before study participation the death of a child who was aged </=20 years. Participants were recruited through 2 university hospitals in northern California. RESULTS: Parents' identified 3 types of information shared by health care providers: (1) information about the child's daily life in hospital; (2) information about the parents' daily life in hospital; and (3) information about treatment and end-of-life issues. Parents' narratives focused primarily on information shared by physicians; nurses, social workers, chaplains, interpreters, and other parents were also important sources of information. Four patterns of information-sharing emerged: (1) no information; (2) basic information; (3) basic information plus implications; and (4) basic information plus implications plus attention to parents' questions, concerns, and emotions. Positive and negative impacts of these patterns on parents are described. CONCLUSIONS: Language and cultural differences create barriers to information-sharing by health care providers to parents who are in need of pediatric palliative care. Less than optimal patterns of information-sharing contribute to frustration, anger, and sadness for parents long after their child's death.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".