Information Needs and Preferences of Parents Considering Treatment of Child Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the information needs and preferences of parents who were making decisions concerning treatment for their child's anxiety. METHODS: Ninety-three parents were recruited from hospital-based clinics, a parent group, and a public information meeting. They completed a survey about preference for decision-making involvement, information needs, and preferences concerning source and amount of information. RESULTS: Most (69%) parents indicated that they prefer a collaborative decision-making role. They rated very highly the need for general information related to treatment and information related to psychosocial interventions and medication treatment. Fewer parents rated information about logistics of treatment (e.g., scheduling, cost) as highly important although this information was considered important by many parents. Direct discussions with a provider, written information, and information accessed through the internet were the most preferred sources of information. Many parents indicated a preference for substantial amounts of information about psychosocial and medication treatments. CONCLUSION: Much of the information that parents want concerning treatment is not widely available. It would be helpful to develop evidence-based brochures and web information resources that focus on answering parents' questions concerning treatment of children's anxiety.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".