Bereavement care for families part 2: Evaluation of a paediatric follow-up programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America, parents are not expected to outlive their child. When they do, neighbours, co-workers, friends and family do not know what to say or do resulting in parents feeling isolated in their grief and left alone to find the support they need. The Paediatric Palliative Care team at Capital Health's, Stollery Children's Hospital (Stollery) in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada began a programme of bereavement follow-ups in April 2002 to offer support to families who had experienced the death of their child. In Part 1 of this article (deJong-Berg and deVlamming, 2005) implementation and the current state of the programme is outlined, and in Part 2 we present the results of the programme evaluation conducted in spring, 2005. Eighty-one families were invited to take part in a satisfaction survey to determine the helpfulness of this bereavement follow-up programme. Twenty-nine parents, representing 21 families, took part. Parents reported that written information received was useful and that they felt supported knowing a resource was available. They also felt also felt that the programme extended the care given by the Stollery staff throughout their child's illness and death. This article reports the findings of the programme evaluation and discusses the implications for practice and future research.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".