Decision-Making Around Gastrostomy-Feeding in Children With Neurologic Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand the decision-making experiences, perspectives, and beliefs of parents of children with a neurologic disability around gastrostomy tube-feeding. DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies to explore the experiences of parents of children with a neurologic disability around gastrostomy-feeding. We searched 5 electronic databases from inception to July 2010. Two authors independently selected articles and extracted data. Concepts and themes relevant to decision-making were constructed by using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eleven studies were selected in which experiences relevant to decision-making were reported. The decision-making process was characterized by decisional conflict. Concepts important to understanding conflict were categorized under 3 themes: values; context; and process. The value and meaning of feeding by mouth and, in contrast, with a gastrostomy tube was the dominant theme that led to internal distress for parents in decision. Feeding by mouth was seen as an enjoyable activity, an important social process, but also a struggle. Gastrostomy-feeding represented a loss of normality, a sign of disability, and a disruption of maternal nurturing and bonding. Context (child and family characteristics) and process (information sharing and support) modified the decision-making experience. CONCLUSIONS: Values associated with gastrostomy-feeding and feeding by mouth, the context of child and family, and the process of decision-making facilitated by the health care system shape parental experiences and decisional conflict. This framework will help guide interventions, such as patient decision aids, that are aimed at improving parental decision-making.
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 | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".