Are parents doing what they want to do? Congruency between parents’ actual and desired participation in the care of their hospitalized child
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family-centered care is integral to pediatric nursing practice, and includes supporting parents to participate in their hospitalized child's care. Research to date suggests that parents' actual participation in care may differ from their desired participation in care, and that such discrepancies may cause parental distress. Supporting parental participation in a way that facilitates congruency between actual and desired participation may contribute to a satisfying experience for families of hospitalized children. This cross-sectional study measured parents' actual and desired level of participation in care of their hospitalized child and examined the congruency between them. Participants (N = 191), the majority of whom were mothers, provided demographic data and completed two instruments measuring desired and actual participation in care. Study results indicate a significant difference between parents' actual and desired participation (t = -9.382, df = 190, p < 0.0001). The majority of parents expressed a desire to increase their participation. The care activities in which these parents participated are described, including providing comfort, assisting with activities of daily living and advocating for their child. Nurses caring for hospitalized children and their families need to remember that parental preferences for participation will vary, and they need to be prepared to support parents' participation at the level parents choose. Understanding congruency between actual and desired levels of participation can promote awareness of parents' preferences for participation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".