Enhancing human aspects of care with young people with muscular dystrophy: Results from a participatory qualitative study with clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most research into clinical care of Duchenne or Becker dystrophinopathies (MD) has focused on slowing progressive muscular weakness and extending lifespan. Scarce attention has been paid to the "human" aspects of care such as psychosocial health, living a fulfilling life, or dealing with disability stigma. This study partnered with clinicians to identify and address local and systemic barriers to these human aspects of care. METHODS: We employed a participatory qualitative design at a multidisciplinary MD clinic using 2 methods: (a) ethnographic observations over a 6-month period of clinic visits of children with MD and families, involving 12 clinicians, and (b) 3 "dialogues" (2-way discussions) with these clinicians to collaboratively analyze practices and co-produce recommendations for change. RESULTS: Our methods produced rich data that, when coanalyzed with clinicians and in consultation with a family advisor, provided deep insights into the practices and underlying assumptions of a neuromuscular clinic. Staff recognized the importance of the human aspects of care but, in reviewing the observational data, identified that it was given insufficient attention in (a) routine clinical processes, (b) clinician-family patterns of interaction, and (c) staffing allocations. CONCLUSION: Although the human aspects of care were important to clinicians in the MD clinic, the routines and nature of the clinic meant these were frequently sidelined for biomedical objectives. We present collaboratively produced practical recommendations toward addressing this disjunction between ideals and practice including developing flexibility to tailor appointment frequency, composition, and length; providing time and physical space for psychosocial aspects of care; and clinician skill building to support child/family expression of "negative" emotions; and discussion of sociopolitical aspects of MD such as living with disability stigma. The study offers a set of considerations that, taking into account individual differences, offer insights for similar clinics elsewhere.
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 | 0.081 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".