Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Communication with parents of critically ill children is a vital and complex aspect of pediatric critical care (PCC) work. Over the past two decades, inquiry addressing engagement with parents has been generally grounded within discourses of family-centered care. While this has led to important changes in PCC practice and policy related to important issues (including visiting hours, family presence in rounds, and parental presence during painful procedures), less attention has been paid to communication practices during engagement with parents. Aims: The goal of this project was to consolidate existing knowledge addressing communication with parents in PCC practice to gain insights into best practices and identify next steps in inquiry. Methods: English language literature addressing family-centered care, partnership, collaboration and communication with family members in PCC published within the past 10 years was explored. Results: Family-centered care remains the predominant framework through which engagement with parents is currently addressed. Although existing family-centered care literature supports the centrality of communication with parents, guidance to practitioners in their everyday communications with parents is limited. Other literature addressing communication with parents in PCC settings suggests that the social positioning of parents in the context of particular conversations and within the broader health care setting is as important as the language and substance of which individual interactions are constructed. Conclusions: Expanding our conceptualization of family-centered care to practices that foster authentic engagement with parents and attend to the power differentials inherent in PCC settings may serve to advance our work to optimize care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.532 | 0.361 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".