Disclosure of medical error to parents and paediatric patients: assessment of parents' attitudes and influencing factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess parental preferences for medical error disclosure and evaluate associated factors. DESIGN: Prospective survey. SETTING: Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Parents of inpatients and outpatients. MAIN EXPOSURE: Anonymous questionnaire administered on May to August 2006, surveying demographic characteristics and identifying parents' thresholds for disclosure using a vignette with six levels of harm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preferred thresholds for parent and patient disclosure and associated factors. RESULTS: 99% of 431 parents (181 inpatients, 250 outpatients) wanted disclosure if there was potential or actual harm versus 77% if there was none (p<0.0001). Most parents (71% vs 41%) wanted their child similarly informed (p<0.0001). Parental age, education, experience with error and child's age did not affect preferences for disclosure. Parents of inpatients (p=0.03, OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.62) and those born in Asia (vs North America) had a lower disclosure threshold (p=0.014, OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.9), and administering the survey with increasing harm had a higher disclosure threshold (p<0.0001, OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.58 to 3.83). EXPERIENCE WITH ERROR: (p=0.05, OR 1.5, 95% CI 1 to 2.2) and child age (eg, or= 11 years (p<0.0001, OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.73 to 4.33)) directly affected preferences for informing the child. Asian parents had a lower threshold for informing the child than North American parents. CONCLUSIONS: Most parents want disclosure and want their child informed of errors with harm. While parental birth country, experience with error and patient age influenced parents' desire for disclosure to their child, the details of disclosure warrant study.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".