Psychological and Social Factors in Undergoing Reconstructive Surgery among Individuals with Craniofacial Conditions: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : Reconstructive surgery to improve psychological well-being is commonly offered to children with craniofacial conditions. Few studies have explored the challenges of reconstructive surgery beyond the physical risks: poor treatment outcomes, infection, brain damage, and death. This qualitative study aims to understand the psychological and social implications such interventions can have for individuals with craniofacial conditions. Design : A total of 38 individuals between the ages of 12 and 61 with such craniofacial conditions as Sturge-Weber syndrome, Treacher Collins syndrome, Möbius syndrome, cleft lip and palate, Noonan syndrome, Crouzon syndrome, and amniotic band syndrome participated in semistructured video-recorded interviews. Participants were recruited at conferences, through study flyers, and by word of mouth. Descriptive, thematic analysis was used to identify themes related to reconstructive surgery. Results : Dominant themes included undergoing surgery to reduce stigmatization, the psychological and social implications of the interventions, outcome satisfaction, parental involvement in decision making about surgery, and recommendations for parents considering surgery for their children with craniofacial conditions. Experiences with reconstructive surgery varied, with some participants expressing surgical benefits and others, disillusionment. Conclusions : The range of participant attitudes and experiences reflect the complexity of reconstructive surgery. Pediatric health care teams involved in the care of children with craniofacial conditions play an important role in advising patients (and their parents) about existing treatment options. The psychological and social implications of reconstructive surgery should be relayed to help families weigh the risks and benefits of surgery in an informed and meaningful way.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".