Obsessive‐Compulsive Disorder: The Process of Parental Adaptation and Implications for Genetic Counseling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has primarily pediatric onset and well-documented unique impacts on family functioning. Limited research has assessed the understanding that parents of children with OCD have of the etiology of the condition, and there are no data regarding potential applications of genetic counseling for this population. We recruited 13 parents of 13 children diagnosed with OCD from the OCD Registry at British Columbia Children's Hospital, and conducted qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews to explore participants' experiences with their child's OCD, causal attributions of OCD, and perceptions of two genetic counseling vignettes. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using elements of grounded theory qualitative methodology. Analysis revealed key components and contextual elements of the process through which parents adapt to their child's OCD. This adaptation process involved conceptualizing the meaning of OCD, navigating its impact on family dynamics, and developing effective illness management strategies. Adaptation took place against a backdrop of stigmatization and was shaped by participants' family history of mental illness and their child's specific manifestations of OCD. Parents perceived genetic counseling, as described in the vignettes, as being empowering, alleviating guilt and blame, and positively impacting treatment orientation. These data provide insight into the process of parental adaptation to pediatric OCD, and suggest that genetic counseling services for families affected by OCD may help facilitate adaptation to this illness.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".