Attitudes and Perceptions of Parents and Staff Toward the Rapid Hydration Protocol Prior to Chemotherapy in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario has implemented a rapid hydration protocol that may reduce the time required to achieve adequate hydration prior to chemotherapy. This study aims to assess parent satisfaction and the attitudes and perceptions of oncology staff with regard to the rapid hydration protocol. Patients who received both standard and rapid hydration were identified, and their parents were asked to rate the child's experiences on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Oncology staff were interviewed and common themes were identified. Parents perceived their child's experience with rapid hydration to be the same or better than with the standard hydration. Themes uncovered through staff interviews indicate an overall positive perception of rapid hydration, but there are some concerns with certain patients not meeting necessary urine parameters in a timely manner, and incorporating the rapid hydration preprinted order into the current chemotherapy preprinted order was a challenge. These results may be used to improve the current practice and inform hospitals planning to adopt rapid hydration, but further research is required to assess parent satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".