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 OpenAlexafffund
Roberta L. Woodgate, Marie Edwards, Jacquie Ripat, Gina Rempel, Sara Johnson

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.055
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

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

Citations67
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207