Parental perceptions of clown care in paediatric intensive care units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objective of this study was to report family satisfaction with regards to the presence of clowns in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). METHODS: This is a single-centre survey-based study, conducted over 4 months in a 12-bed third level PICU in a university hospital. All parents present at the bedside of their child during clowning were considered as potential participants. Eligible parents were approached by one of the two intensivists as investigators and asked to complete a survey within the 48 h following the clowns' intervention. RESULTS: Thirty-three parents consented to complete the survey. Median age of children was 14 months (15 days to 16 years) and median Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD) score was 1 (0-22). Twenty-four (72.7%) were considered as clinically stable while the clowns intervened. Twenty-eight parents (84.8%) and 27 (81.8%) considered that clowns had a positive effect on themselves and on their child, respectively. Clown care was considered as necessary in 19 cases (57.6%), optional in 13 (39.4%) and unnecessary in 1 (3.0%). The degree of parental satisfaction was not significantly associated with the child's clinical stability. CONCLUSION: We suggested that medical clowning in the PICU is well accepted by parents, regardless of severity of their child's condition. This study supports the adoption of medical clowning in PICUs as a patient- and family-centred care 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".