MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014589556 · doi:10.1136/ebn.6.1.29

Review: mothers of children with physical or mental disabilities experience emotional compromise between acceptance and denial

2003· letter· en· W2014589556 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Paterson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialPsychologyCINAHLClinical psychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPsychoanalysisPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nelson AM. A metasynthesis: mothering other-than-normal children. Qual Health Res2002 ; 12 : 515 –30 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: What are the experiences of mothers of children with physical or mental disabilities? Studies were identified by searching CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstracts. Qualitative studies about mothering children with physical or mental disabilities were selected. Children could be of any age and have any condition. Key phrases, themes, concepts, or metaphors from each study were listed and juxtaposed in tables. Studies were translated into one another and synthesised. 12 studies were included. The process of mothering entailed 4 steps. (1) Becoming the mother of a disabled child. Timing: mothers of newborns with obvious anomalies held diminished roles as staff cared for their infants. Mothers felt frustrated when staff made decisions about their ability to cope and when staff provided a false protection. When a child’s disability was discovered, mothers had to deal with the loss of the “normal” child and acceptance of a different child. Emotions: emotions commonly expressed by mothers were injustice, fear, anxiety, grief, shock, disappointment, despair, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DQualitative%2BHealth%2BResearch%26rft.stitle%253DQual%2BHealth%2BRes%26rft.aulast%253DNelson%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D12%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D515%26rft.epage%253D530%26rft.atitle%253DA%2BMetasynthesis%253A%2BMothering%2BOther-than-Normal%2BChildren%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1177%252F104973202129120043%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11939251%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/104973202129120043&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11939251&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F1%2F29.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000174511200006&link_type=ISI

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207