MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510523544 · doi:10.1080/00981389.2016.1218402

Evaluation of a family camp intervention for children with a heart transplant and their families

2016· article· en· W2510523544 on OpenAlexaff
David Nicholas, Bernadette Dodd, Simon Urschel, Amber Young, Lori J. West

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Health Care · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial supportPsychological interventionStressorIntervention (counseling)Coping (psychology)MedicinePeer supportFamily supportPsychologyFamily medicineNursingClinical psychologySocial psychologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the arduous course of heart transplantation and follow-up care, recipients and their families face complex challenges and stressors warranting supportive interventions. This study explored the impact of a family camp as an intervention of education and social support for pediatric transplant recipients and their families. A total of 49 individuals participated in this evaluation, including eight children and nine youth with heart transplants, five siblings, 19 parents, and 13 health care providers. Participants ranked and described the 3-day family camp experience. Analysis of pre/post intervention measures on knowledge, social support, and coping revealed statistically significant improvements in knowledge, social support, self-esteem, and psychological stability. Satisfaction surveys revealed the camp to be an important resource for education, family fun, and peer support among transplant recipients, their families, and the health care team. Implications and recommendations are offered for clinical and community practice.

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 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Work in Health CareSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207