MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175125282 · doi:10.1186/s12887-015-0514-5

Intense parenting: a qualitative study detailing the experiences of parenting children with complex care needs

2015· article· en· W2175125282 on OpenAlexafffund
Roberta L. Woodgate, Marie Edwards, Jacquie Ripat, Barbara L. Borton, Gina Rempel

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pediatrics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineQualitative researchNursingContext (archaeology)CommitInterviewCritical ethnographyTheme (computing)Developmental psychologyEthnographyPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Increased numbers of children with chronic illnesses and/or disabilities who have complex care needs are living at home. Along with the transfer of care to the home setting, parents assume the primary responsibility of their child's complex care needs. Accordingly, it becomes even more important to understand the evolving roles and challenges faced by parents of children with complex care needs in order to better support them. The aim of this paper is to present research findings that add to our understanding of the roles parents assume in parenting their children with complex care needs. METHODS: To arrive at a detailed and accurate understanding of families' perspectives and experiences, the qualitative research design of ethnography was used. In total, 68 parents from 40 families were recruited. Data collection strategies included ethnographic methods of interviewing and photovoice. Several levels of analysis generated a sociocultural theme with subthemes representing how parents experienced raising children with complex care needs within the context of their life situations. RESULTS: Intense parenting as the overarching theme refers to the extra efforts parents had to commit to in raising their children with complex care needs. Parenting was described as labour-intensive, requiring a readiness to provide care at any time. This left parents with minimal time for addressing any needs and tasks not associated with caring for their child. The main theme is supported by four sub-themes: 1) the good parent; 2) more than a nurse; 3) there's just not enough; 4) it takes a toll on the health of parents. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, parents of children with complex care needs take on more roles as well as work more intensely at these roles than parents of healthy children. This, in turn, has led to the need for additional supports and resources for parents. However, to date, parents of children with complex care needs are still lacking adequate services and supports necessary to help them in their role of intense parenting. The findings sensitize professionals to the issues confronted by parents caring for children with complex care needs. Implications for further research and clinical practice are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations220
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PediatricsSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207