MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560147854 · doi:10.1186/s13023-016-0548-2

Experiences of caregivers of children with inherited metabolic diseases: a qualitative study

2016· article· en· W2560147854 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shabnaz Siddiq, Brenda J. Wilson, Ian D. Graham, Monica Lamoureux, Sara D. Khangura, Kylie Tingley, Laure Tessier, Pranesh Chakraborty, Doug Coyle, Sarah Dyack, Jane Gillis, Cheryl R. Greenberg, Robin Z. Hayeems, Shailly Jain‐Ghai, Jonathan B. Kronick, Anne‐Marie Laberge, Julian Little, John J. Mitchell, Chitra Prasad, Komudi Siriwardena, Rebecca Sparkes, Kathy N. Speechley, Sylvia Stöckler, Yannis Trakadis, S. Wafa, Jagdeep S. Walia, Kumanan Wilson, Nataliya Yuskiv, Beth K. Potter

Bibliographic record

VenueOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity of CalgaryLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of AlbertaSickKids FoundationWestern UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaUniversity of British ColumbiaMontreal Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoBC Children's HospitalOttawa HospitalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversity of OttawaDalhousie UniversityNewborn Screening OntarioChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of ManitobaAlberta Children's HospitalStollery Children's HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreMcGill University Health CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHuman geneticsMedicineQualitative researchGerontologyFamily medicineGeneticsBiologySociologySocial scienceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We sought to understand the experiences of parents/caregivers of children with inherited metabolic diseases (IMD) in order to inform strategies for supporting patients and their families. We investigated their experiences regarding the management of disease, its impact on child and family life, and interactions with the health care system. METHODS: From four Canadian centres, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with parents/caregivers of children with an IMD who were born between 2006 and 2015 and who were participating in a larger cohort study. Participants were selected with the aim of achieving a diverse sample with respect to treatment centre, IMD, and age of the child. Interviews emphasized the impacts of the disease and its treatment on the child and family and explicitly queried perceptions of interactions with the health care system. We identified emergent themes from the interview data. RESULTS: We completed interviews with 21 parents/caregivers. The 21 children were aged <1 to 7 years old with IMD that included amino acid disorders, urea cycle disorders, fatty acid oxidation disorders, and organic acid disorders or 'other' IMD. Most parents reported that they and their families had adapted well to their child's diagnosis. Parents used proactive coping strategies to integrate complex disease management protocols into routine family life. An important source of stress was concern about the social challenges faced by their children. Participants reported positive interactions with their most involved health care providers within the metabolic clinic. However, they reported challenges associated with the health care system outside of disease-specific metabolic care, when encountering systems and providers unfamiliar with the child's disease. CONCLUSIONS: The successful use of proactive coping strategies among parents of children with IMD in this study suggests the potential value of promoting positive coping and is an important direction for future study. Parents' social concerns for their children were important stressors that warrant consideration by health care providers positioned to support families. Our results with respect to experiences with care highlight the important role of specialized metabolic clinics and point to a need for better coordination of the care that takes place outside the disease-specific management of IMD.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations74
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrphanet Journal of Rare DiseasesSame topicMetabolism and Genetic DisordersFrench-language works237,207