Family‐centred care: a qualitative study of Chinese and South Asian immigrant parents' experiences of care in paediatric oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, there is increasing emphasis being placed upon providing family-centred care (FCC) in paediatric oncology settings. However, there is a lack of knowledge of FCC in paediatric oncology from the perspectives of immigrant parents. The purpose of this paper is to describe Chinese and South Asian immigrant parents' experiences of FCC in paediatric oncology settings in Canada. METHODS: This study adopted a constructivist grounded theory approach. Fifty first generation Chinese and South Asian parents of children with cancer who were at least 6 months post-diagnosis were recruited from six Canadian paediatric oncology centres. Interviews were conducted in English, Cantonese, Mandarin, Urdu, Punjabi or Hindi, and transcribed into English. Analysis involved line-by-line, focused and theoretical coding, and the use of the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Findings indicated that overall parents were highly satisfied with the care and services they received, and their experiences were reflective of the key elements of FCC. However, there were some areas of concern identified by participants: parents not perceiving themselves as a member of the medical team; inconsistency in the quality and co-ordination of services among healthcare providers; disrespectful and mechanical manner of a few healthcare providers; and parents' discomfort with healthcare providers communicating sensitive health-related information directly with their child. CONCLUSIONS: In order to successfully provide family-centred services to immigrant parents of children with cancer, better communication of the elements of FCC between healthcare staff and families is needed to negotiate a clear role for the parents as partners of the healthcare team. Moreover, a better understanding of how family relationships are structured in immigrant families will assist healthcare providers to balance the best interests of the child with that of the family as a unit.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".