They know it's safe – they know what to expect from that face: perceptions towards a cognitive‐behavioural counselling programme among caregivers of children with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of eight caregivers who provide care to children with cystic fibrosis in an eight-week cognitive-behavioural counselling programme at a children's hospital in Winnipeg, Canada. BACKGROUND: Youth with cystic fibrosis experience significant behavioural and psychosocial challenges, such as depression, anxiety and poor treatment adherence. Caregivers are critical to the provision of care and treatment to young people living with cystic fibrosis. Caregivers of youth with cystic fibrosis experience psychosocial morbidity. Thus, the development of counselling interventions is required to enhance psychosocial well-being among the caregivers of youth with cystic fibrosis. DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was informed by the thematic analytic qualitative research tradition. In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with eight caregivers who participated in our programme. The audiotaped interviews were then subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: The counselling sessions were experienced as 'distinctly different' from routine appointments at the hospital and were characterised by a sense of listening and bidirectional communication. In addition to acquiring a sense of trust and accountability through the programme, counselling appeared to enhance caregivers' perception of their time use, leading to greater temporal agency. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: From this evidence-based cognitive-behavioural counselling programme, insights about the complex psychosocial lives of the cystic fibrosis community are discussed within the context of the literature. Integrating cognitive-behavioural counselling into routine clinical CF care should be considered as a method to enhance caregiving capacity in the CF community and should be championed by nurses.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".