Family Perspectives on Visiting the Pediatric Emergency Department for Migraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of families regarding their expectations and experience of visiting the emergency department (ED) for migraine. METHODS: This was a qualitative study involving the families of 25 patients aged 10 to 18 years receiving ED care for acute migraine. Following their visit, independent semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with both the patient and parent or guardian. Questions were designed to explore factors pertaining to the family's perspective regarding their visit to the ED and expectations for the ED visit. RESULTS: Families reported a variety of reasons for visiting the ED. The majority of participants reported that they were worried about their headaches. Families more commonly had expectations for treatment than they did for investigations. As compared with patients, parents more commonly reported specific expectations for investigations and less commonly expressed concerns about intravenous treatments. Expectations for treatment efficacy varied: whereas some parents expected complete pain relief, for others, lesser degrees of relief were considered satisfactory. The experience of treatment efficacy was related to willingness to receive the same treatment again. CONCLUSIONS: Given that a high frequency of families endorsed that they were worried about the headache when presenting to the ED, clinicians should strive to make a diagnosis of migraine in the ED setting and to educate families about this diagnosis. Because of divergent parent and patient perspectives, health care providers should inquire about family expectations, especially in relation to expectations for investigations and concerns surrounding intravenous interventions, and ensure that both the patient's and parent's perspectives are considered when developing a management plan for pediatric migraine.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".