MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087139995 · doi:10.1080/01460860802023539

Health Professionals' Beliefs Related to Parental Involvement in Ambulatory Care: An International Inquiry

2008· article· en· W2087139995 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jocelyne Tourigny, Julie Chartrand, Julie Massicotte

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipNursingExploratory researchAmbulatory carePsychological interventionHealth careMedicineAllianceHealth professionalsAmbulatoryPsychologyFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in health care delivery in Canada and Europe, especially the shift to ambulatory care, have modified the care that children and parents receive and have prompted the need for a partnership alliance. The objectives of this exploratory study were to identify Canadian and Belgian health professionals' beliefs and attitudes towards parental involvement in their child's ambulatory care and to determine if these beliefs varied according to cultural background. Health professionals from both countries generally were in favor of parental involvement in their child's care, but are uncertain about its advantages and disadvantages. Facilitators and barriers mentioned by the health care providers were related to parents' abilities or their attitudes toward partnership, and they also expressed a need for more education on the subject. Results of this study indicate that health professionals working in ambulatory care are not fully ready to utilize parents as true partners in their interventions with children and families. Staff education is an important step towards the establishment and maintenance of a real partnership.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Comprehensive Pediatric NursingSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207