DOZ047.07: Parental feeding concerns of infants and children with esophageal atresia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Feeding problems have been described in children with esophageal atresia (EA). This can cause high levels of parental/caregiver concern. Aims The primary aim of this study was to determine specific feeding concerns of parents/caregivers of infants and young children with EA, including introducing solids and grading up to family foods. Methods A questionnaire was developed for parents/caregivers of infants/children with EA, aged 12 months to 6 years. Questionnaires were completed by 20 parents of infants/children attending a multidisciplinary EA clinic between June 2016 and June 2017. All children had type C EA. Demographics, feeding history, and parental concerns around feeding were assessed. The Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding Scale was also completed by parents. Results Eleven (55%) parents agree/strongly agree that they were concerned about their child's feeding prior to the introduction of solids and about moving from a smooth puree to more textured solids. The most common concerns were choking and food impaction for both time points. Twelve (60%) parents agree/strongly agree that the majority of mealtimes in their child's first 1–2 years of life were stressful. Thirteen (65%) parents reported avoiding particular foods due to their child's EA. The majority of children (n = 17) had no feeding difficulty according to an objective scale, with the rest minor. Conclusions This study highlights that parental concern around feeding still exists in infants and children without a severe feeding difficulty and needs to be addressed. Multidisciplinary involvement including a dietitian and speech pathologist from an early age is important for infants and children with EA. Further education provided to parents/caregivers may assist with reduced stress around feeding and create more positive mealtime behaviours.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".