MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607906828 · doi:10.1093/sleepj/zsx050.912

0913 EXPLORING SLEEP DISTURBANCE AMONG FAMILY CAREGIVERS OF CHILDREN WITH MEDICAL COMPLEXITY

2017· article· en· W2607906828 on OpenAlexaff
Krista Keilty, Marilyn Ballantyne, Rohul Amin, Laura Beaune, Josie Barbita, Eyal Cohen, Indra Narang, Karen Spalding, Robyn Stremler

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHome and Community Care Support ServicesHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily caregiversPsychological interventionCaregiver stressMoodPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyGerontologyPsychiatryDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family caregivers of children with complex care needs that depend on medical technology (e.g. home ventilation) are relied upon to provide skillful, vigilant homecare 24-hours/day. This responsibility has been linked to chronic sleep disturbance, placing family caregivers at risk of poor health outcomes. To inform testing of a sleep promoting intervention, the following questions have guided this research: What factors influence sleep among family caregivers? How do family caregivers appraise the utility of sleep-promoting interventions? To what degree do family caregivers perceive sleep and related health outcomes as problematic? A multi-site cross-sectional observational design using mixed data sources is underway. Participants include family caregivers with a child dependent on medical technology at night, > 3 months homecare experience and no diagnosed sleep disorders. Interviews have been completed for qualitative content analysis. Quantitative measures administered include: Q- sort using images/text depicting sleep-promoting interventions; Scale of the Problem to measure participant’s appraisal of their sleep/health on a unipolar Likert scale ranging from 0 to 4. Nine participants have completed study procedures with further sample diversification planned. Emerging qualitative themes include: 1) caregiver (vigilance/worries, mood/emotions, sleep habits, parenting preferences), 2) child (age/development, equipment use, sleep quality, care needs), 3) family (financial/household stressors, other child-care, employment demands), 4) environment (lights/noises, personal technologies, housing, sleep location); and, 5) homecare (presence of night nursing, provider competence, family-centred service, resource constraints). To date, participants rank mindfulness/yoga (7/9), brief daily-exercise (6/9) and enhanced use of respite (6/9) their ‘top choices’ among evidence-based interventions. Moreover, family caregivers appraise their sleep quality (3.2/4), daily stress (3.2/4), sleep quantity (3.0/4) and fatigue (3.0/4) to be problematic. Findings suggest multiple factors contribute to poor quality and inadequate quantity of sleep among family caregivers when a child is medically complex. Family caregivers assign value to addressing sleep problems and support testing of evidence-based sleep promoting interventions with demonstrated effectiveness in other caregiver (older-adult) populations. Funding for the study is gratefully acknowledged from the SickKids Foundation and Holland Bloorview Research Institute.

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)0.000
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207