Bridging the divide between families and health professionals’ perspectives on family‐centred care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe and discuss key findings from a recent research project that challenge an increasingly prevalent theme, apparent in both family-centred care research and practice, of conceptualizing family-centred care as shifting care, care management, and advocacy responsibilities to families. The purpose of the research, from which these findings emerged, was to develop a conceptualization of family-centred care grounded in the experiences of families and direct health-care providers. DESIGN: Qualitative research methods, following the grounded theory tradition, were used to develop a conceptual framework that described the dimensions of the concept of family-centred care and their interrelationships, in the substantive area of children's developmental services. This article reports on and extends key findings from this grounded theory study, in light of current trends in the literature. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The substantive area that served as the setting for the research was developmental services at a children's hospital in Alberta, Canada. Data was collected through focus groups and individual interviews with 37 parents of children diagnosed with a developmental problem and 16 frontline health-care providers. FINDINGS: Key findings from this research project do not support the current emphasis in family-centred care research and practice on conceptualizing family-centred care as the shifting of care, care management, and advocacy responsibilities to families. Rather, what emerged was that parents want to work truly collaboratively with health-care providers in making treatment decisions and on implementing a dynamic care plan that will work best for child and family. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A definition of collaboration is provided, and the nature of collaborative relationships described. Contributing factors to the difficulty in establishing true collaborative relationships between families and health-care professionals, where the respective roles to be played by health-care professionals and families are jointly determined, are discussed. In light of these findings we strongly advocate for the re-examination of current family-centred care policy and practice.
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 | 0.035 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".