MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401874934 · doi:10.1111/cch.12345

Siblings of children with complex care needs: their perspectives and experiences of participating in everyday life

2016· article· en· W2401874934 on OpenAlex
Roberta L. Woodgate, Marie Edwards, Jacquie Ripat, Gina Rempel, Sara Johnson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSiblingEveryday lifePhotovoicePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyEthnographyQualitative researchSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Participating in everyday life is essential to the healthy development and emotional well-being of children. However, little is known about siblings of children with complex care needs (CCN), and their perspectives and experiences of participating in everyday life. The aim of this paper is to present research findings that add to our understanding of how siblings of children with CCN view and experience participation in everyday life. METHODS: To arrive at a detailed and accurate understanding of the siblings' perspectives and experiences, we used the qualitative research design of ethnography. Sixteen siblings (seven brothers, nine sisters) of children with CCN were recruited. The siblings ranged in age between 7 and 25 years, with a mean age of 14 years. All siblings took part in opened-ended interviews and completed ecomaps to describe how they participate. Five siblings also took part in the photovoice method. Analysis involved several iterative steps, congruent with ethnography. RESULTS: Four main themes emerged as follows: (1) participation is about being part of a group; (2) it feels good; (3) I love my sibling but…; and (4) promoting participation. Siblings of children with CCN identified challenges to participation and also described ways that they participate that relate to the care of their sibling. CONCLUSIONS: Siblings prioritized the relationship with their sisters and brothers with CCN in their life, and a great deal of their participation was chosen with their sibling in mind. Sibling-to-sibling relationships were distinct and meaningful and, as a result, participation was always done mindfully and with the family needs at the forefront. Nonetheless, clinicians caring for children with CCN must keep in mind the challenges that siblings of children with CCN experience and provide strategies to siblings that will help to promote their participation in everyday life.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.295 · 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