‘Wondering and waiting’ after obstetrical brachial plexus injury: Are we underestimating the effects of the traumatic experience on the families?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obstetrical brachial plexus injury (OBPI) in children can cause great distress to a family due to uncertain recovery, variability in spontaneous recovery and unclear indicators for surgery. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of having a child with OBPI on the family and whether the Impact on Family Scale (IoFS) can assist in addressing family concerns. METHODS: A mixed-method (cross-sectional survey and semistructured interviews) study design was used. RESULTS: Thirty-eight families of children with OBPI completed the IoFS. Surgery significantly predicted a higher IoFS total impact score (P=0.02). No statistically significant association between the total impact score and severity or age was found, suggesting that impact on family was not dependent on these factors. Themes that emerged from the interviews included traumatic birthing experience, wondering and waiting, and experiencing surgery. CONCLUSION: All families should receive support and acknowledgement of the widespread impact of OBPI.
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".