MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997890227 · doi:10.1037/cpp0000314

Facilitating Respite, Communication, and Care for Children With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Preliminary Evaluation of the Caregiver Pain Information Guide

2019· article· en· W2997890227 on OpenAlex
Lara M. Genik, Geneva Millett, C. Meghan McMurtry

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespite careIntellectual disabilityPsychologyMedicineNursingAge appropriateDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pain is common in children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and yet is an understudied issue. Respite workers commonly care for children with I/DD but are lacking in resources to assist in pain assessment and management for this population. Without adequate knowledge in this domain, children with I/DD are at risk of their pain being underrecognized and undermanaged. A resource for caregivers was developed to address this issue, facilitating communication between parents and respite workers and better addressing the complex pain-related needs of children with I/DD. The objective of this study was to solicit initial feedback on the content, feasibility, and usability of the resource. Method/Procedure: Semistructured individual interviews and questionnaires were completed with 7 parents of children with I/DD and 6 respite workers. Results: All participants viewed the resource as important and potentially useful. Content analyses indicated that participants appreciated the comprehensiveness and format of the resource, whereas the modifiability was identified as an area for improvement. Participants believed that the resource would be useful across settings with a variety of caregivers. Three categories of considerations were identified as potential facilitators and barriers for implementation: consideration of how the resource is being completed, who is completing it, and organization-based procedures. Discussion/Conclusions: Results from this study suggest that the Caregiver Pain Information Guide is a promising resource for helping respite workers better understand pain in children with I/DD. Future work is needed on implementation and impact of this resource in community settings. Implications for Impact Statement Children with intellectual and developmental disabilities experience pain frequently and are at risk of having their pain missed by caregivers. Parents would like to share pain-related knowledge and skills specific to their children with intellectual and developmental disabilities with those who support their child in other settings. The Caregiver Pain Information Guide was created to facilitate communication between parents and caregivers of these children. The current article discusses initial feedback from parents and respite workers regarding this new tool.

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.076
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.378 · 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