MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807755127 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000001597

Parental Presence at the Bedside of Critically Ill Children in a Unit With Unrestricted Visitation*

2018· article· en· W2807755127 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Foster, Farhana I. AlOthmani, Jamie A. Seabrook, Tariq Alofisan, Yasser M. AlGarni, Amrita Sarpal

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteDalhousie UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritically illPediatricsPediatric intensive care unitProspective cohort studyCritical illnessCohortTertiary careEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the percentage of time that critically ill children have a parent at the bedside and to identify extrinsic factors that are associated with percent of time with parental presence at the bedside. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: PICU in a single tertiary care children's hospital. SUBJECTS: Primary two parents of all children admitted to the PICU on 12 preselected days during a 1-year period from 2014 to 2015. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 111 observations of 108 unique PICU admissions and families were performed. Children had at least one parent present a mean of 58.2% (SD, 34.6%) of the time. Mothers spent more time at the bedside (56.3% [SD, 31.0%]) than fathers (37.3% [SD, 29.5%]) (p = 0.0001). Percent of time with parental presence at the bedside was positively correlated with age (rs = 0.23; p = 0.02) and negatively associated with Pediatric Risk of Mortality III score (rs = -0.26; p = 0.01). Percent of time with parental presence at the bedside was lower for children who were mechanically ventilated (42.8% [SD, 35.5%]) than not (64.5% [SD, 32.2%]) (p = 0.01) and whose parent(s) were single (45.5% [SD, 27.5%]) or cohabitating/common-law (35.7% [SD, 26.4%]) compared with parents who were married (64.2% [SD, 34.2%]) or separated/divorced (68.3% [SD, 28.8%]) (p = 0.02). Percent of time with parental presence at the bedside was higher for children with chronic illnesses (63.4% [SD, 32.9%] vs 50.1% [SD, 35.8%] without; p = 0.04), when there was a bed in the patient room (61.4% [SD, 34.0%] vs 32.5% [SD, 28.3%] without; p = 0.01), and when parents slept in the patient room (90.3% [SD, 11.2%]) compared with their own home (37.6% [SD, 34.4%]) (p < 0.0001). Percent of time with parental presence at the bedside was not correlated with day of PICU stay, number of siblings, previous PICU admission, isolation status, or nursing ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Children had a parent present at the bedside approximately 60% of the time. The parents of younger, sicker children may benefit from supportive interventions during PICU admission. Further research is needed to examine both extrinsic and intrinsic factors affecting parental presence at the bedside.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207