MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A holistic intervention programme for families with a child with a disability

2004· article· en· W2062827517 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Pelchat, Hélène Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyIntervention (counseling)PsychologyNursingAction (physics)Affect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyHealth careMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The birth of a child with a disability may cause serious stress for the parents and affect each member of the family. Parents need support to deal with such a situation; however, health care professionals themselves are not always well equipped to help them and often adopt an attitude of withdrawal. AIM: The aim of this paper is to describe a family intervention programme developed in collaboration with families who were adapting to the birth of a child with a disability. DISCUSSION: The primary purpose of the programme is to help family members adapt to the situation in which they suddenly find themselves, primarily by reducing stress. The family's autonomy and competencies in providing care for the child are promoted and called into action. The programme encompasses different aspects of family relations: the individual, marital, parental, family, extended family and non-family sub-systems. Its theoretical foundations, clinical experience with families of a child with a health problem, and our previous research have enabled a remodelled vision of the way individuals and families adapt to such a situation. CONCLUSION: The symbioses of the design of the programme, training in its application, and intervention itself have transformed families of a child with a disability as well as the nurses themselves. The key element of this transformation has been the mutual recognition of relevant skills and authority by families and health care professionals that has led to new competencies, self-determination and an individuality that may change their lives.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207