Inpatients with cerebral palsy and complex communication needs identified barriers to communicating with nursesCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S Balandin Correspondence to: Dr S Balandin, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; s.balandin@usyd.edu.au How do patients with cerebral palsy and complex communication needs (CCNs) describe their hospital communication experiences, communication barriers, and effective communication strategies? Qualitative study. Surgical, medical, emergency, intensive care, and rehabilitation settings in metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia. 10 adults (age range 35–61 y, 50% men) with cerebral palsy and CCNs (limited or no functional speech), who were in hospital for ⩾3 days in the past 2 years, had a functional method of communication, and did not have an intellectual disability. Patients participated in individual semi-structured interviews that lasted 60 minutes. The interviews addressed patients’ perspectives on positive and negative experiences of being in hospital with CCNs, focusing on communication-related issues. Data were analysed thematically. (1) Methods of communication . 9 patients communicated using dysarthric speech; other methods included speech-generating devices (SGDs), spelling boards, and writing. All patients understood …
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; 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".