Engaging Fathers in Pediatric Palliative Care Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fathers are under-represented in pediatric palliative care research despite frequently playing a key role in the lives of their children. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that affected paternal study invitation and participation. A secondary mixed-methods evaluation design guided examination of interview and focus group data as well as field notes from a qualitative study that examined the experiences and support needs of fathers of children with a life-limiting illness. Facilitators of paternal participation in the study consisted of: fathers' desire to gain from study participation either for themselves or others, perception of the study's importance, sense of appreciation for the study's focus on fathers and an established relationship with recruiting health care providers. Barriers to study participation included: recruiting health care providers' appraisal of fathers' lack of well-being, bereaved fathers' self-reported poor coping and the inability to locate and contact fathers, particularly after a child's death. Strategies for improving the engagement of fathers into research entailed: educating recruitment personnel, designing "father-focused" studies, communicating the value of the research to recruitment personnel and potential participants, and ensuring that child health records are accurate and include fathers' contact information.
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 | 0.092 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".