Determinants of parental behaviour when children undergo day‐care surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This paper reports an investigation of the nature and strength of parental beliefs about their participation in their children's day-care surgery as well as demonstrated parental behaviours during the immediate post-recovery period. BACKGROUND: Parents want to participate in their children's hospital care but their behaviour does not reflect their intention. Parents' beliefs about their role in the hospital may be a factor influencing the way they help their children at the course of a day-care surgery. RESEARCH METHODS: A descriptive correlative design was used. French and English speaking parents of 3-12-year old children were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire which comprised 42 items measuring the intensity of attitudes, norms and sense of control and their influence in predicting their intention to participate in hospital care. Parents' behaviours during the first hour following the child's return from the recovery room were video-recorded. RESULTS: A total of 220 parents participated in the study. Parental beliefs about participation in care were quite strong in terms of subjective norms, sense of control and attitude, predicting 64% of their intention to participate. Parents demonstrated mostly attitude type behaviours, while the level of demonstrated helping behaviours was somewhat low. CONCLUSIONS: Parents can be valuable partners in ambulatory care settings. Clinicians and health care managers should aim at establishing a true partnership with parents, in order to improve the quality of care given to children and their family in hospital and at home.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".