Stories – a novel approach to transfer complex health information to parents: A qualitative study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify the beneficial attributes and mechanisms of storytelling through understanding the parental experiences of using a storybook knowledge translation intervention. Method: An exploratory descriptive design involving 23 parents of children presenting to two emergency departments for treatment of croup. Parents received a set of three storybooks, each representing a different severity level of croup (mild, moderate, and severe). Results: The storybooks were evaluated favorably. Parents were better able to understand the progression and treatment of croup by reading the stories, thus reducing uncertainty and alleviating anxiety about their child's condition. Parents consistently reported four positive outcomes associated with using the storybooks: (1) feeling reassured that they had done the right thing, (2) reduced uncertainty, (3) a normalization of the experience, and (4) feeling empowered. Conclusion: The “storybook” presentation of health information was regarded favorably by parents...
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it