Gender imbalance in pediatric palliative care research samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the sampling performance of research on parental perspectives in pediatric palliative care and examined if and how gender imbalance was treated. We undertook a systematic review of parental perspectives research in pediatric palliative care using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Study selection inclusion criteria were: (1) published between 1988 and 2008; (2) in English; (3) conducted in North America; (4) focused on parents of children aged 0-18 years who were expected to die or had died; (5) had 'parent' in the title; and (6) focused on parents' experiences or on parents' perspectives regarding the child's illness/death. Keyword searches produced a list of 2103 studies, of which 45 met the criteria for inclusion. The ratio of mothers to fathers participating in the studies was examined. We found that there has been an increase in research on parental perspectives in pediatric palliative care over the last 5 years, but what constitutes 'parental' in this literature continues to be primarily 'maternal'. Mothers constituted 75% of the overall sample of parents. In only four studies was the gender imbalance addressed as one of the limitations of the study. There is a growing interest in parental perspectives in pediatric palliative care, but the research does not equally reflect the experiences and needs of mothers and fathers. Gender can shape experiences of both parenthood and grief; balanced gender sampling and accurate analysis is essential for research on 'parental perspectives'. Gender imbalance in research samples, designs, recruitment strategies, and data gathering methods must be addressed.
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 | 0.324 | 0.529 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".