The day‐to‐day experiences of caring for children with Osteogenesis Imperfecta: A qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the day-to-day experiences of family caregivers who are caring for children with Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI). BACKGROUND: Osteogenesis Imperfecta is a rare genetic condition known to cause bone fragility. Family caregivers of children with OI play an important role in helping these children live well at home. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive design was used. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in accordance with the COREQ guidelines. Adult family caregivers (n = 18) of children with OI were recruited from a university-affiliated, paediatric orthopaedic hospital in Montreal, Canada. Individual interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and inductively thematically analysed. RESULTS: Osteogenesis Imperfecta family caregiving entailed: (a) managing regular day-to-day caregiving activities, including morning routines, evening routines and the facilitation of their child's mobilisation; (b) coping with periods that made the caregiving routine more challenging, such as fractures, surgeries and pain; and (c) devising long-term strategies to support day-to-day care, such as managing the environment, accessing medical and school resources, and coordinating care and respite. CONCLUSIONS: The day-to-day routine of caring for a child with OI may be disrupted by challenging periods and improved by long-term strategies developed to ease day-to-day care. These strategies suggest future directions for clinicians and policymakers to improve health services and caregiver well-being. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Clinical, policy and research endeavours need to incorporate new interventions to support the needs of family caregivers. These recommendations may be relevant to other clinicians and policymakers working with families living with rare and chronic physical conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".