Parental Perspectives on Inpatient Versus Outpatient Management of Pediatric Febrile Neutropenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To describe parent preference for treatment of febrile neutropenia and the key drivers of parental decision making, structured face-to-face interviews were used to elicit parent preferences for inpatient versus outpatient management of pediatric febrile neutropenia. Parents were presented with 4 different scenarios and asked to indicate which treatment option they preferred and to describe reasons for this preference during the face-to-face interview. Comments were recorded in writing by research assistants. A consensus approach to thematic analysis was used to identify themes from the written comments of the research assistants. A total of 155 parents participated in the study. Of these, 80 (51.6%) parents identified hospital-based intravenous treatment as the most preferred treatment scenario for febrile neutropenia. The major themes identified included convenience/disruptiveness, physical health, emotional well-being, and modifiers of parental decision making. Most parents preferred hospital-based treatment for febrile neutropenia. An understanding of issues that influence parental decision making may assist health care workers in planning program implementation and further support families in their decision-making process.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".