Stress levels experienced by the parents of enterally fed children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The stress levels of parents of children with chronic illness/disability who were also involved in an enteral feeding programme were examined and compared to the stress levels of parents of healthy children and parents of children with other chronic illnesses reported in previous research. METHODS: Sixty-four parents who had a child with an enteral feeding tube completed the Parenting Stress Index (PSI). RESULTS: Based on criteria developed by Abidin (1995), 42.18% (n = 29) of these parents displayed high stress levels. T-tests revealed that Total Stress scores on the PSI of the parents of children involved in the enteral feeding programme were significantly higher than those reported in the sample of parents used to norm the PSI (P < 0.001), and comparison samples of parents of children with growth deficiencies (P < 0.001) and parents of children with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (P < 0.01). Compared to a sample of parents of children with Rett syndrome, the parents of children involved in the enteral feeding programme reported similar levels of stress on the Parent Domain of the PSI and significantly less stress on the Child Domain (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with the stress reported by parents of children with an enteral feeding tube were severity of their child's illness/disability, the constant caretaking demands placed on the parent, and the level of support provided by the parents' social network.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".