A Scoping Review of the Impact of Family Presence on Pediatric Resuscitation Team Members*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this scoping review was to identify the extent, range, and nature of information currently available on family presence during pediatric resuscitation on resuscitation team members and their performance. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search strategy was created and executed by identifying primary keywords in central articles, pretesting key words and combinations of them in databases to confirm articles returned fell within the search parameters, and checking that key articles were returned which confirmed the search strategy was not too narrow. STUDY SELECTION: Two members of the research team independently conducted relevance screening using predetermined inclusion and exclusion parameters. Titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were reviewed using the set criteria involving. From the refined list of selected articles, full texts of each article were considered for final determination of inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Key items of information were gathered from each article selected using a predefined extraction list. The extracted information was then sorted into themes and relevant issues. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 3,012 studies initially identified, 48 met the inclusion criteria. Themes identified included as follows: 1) attitudes and opinions on family presence during pediatric resuscitation; 2) reasons in support of or against family presence during pediatric resuscitation; 3) education, training, and support; and 4) resuscitation performance and outcomes. Our review of the available information highlighted that the majority of work done to this point has focused heavily on healthcare provider opinions and relied mainly on survey method. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that future research employ more rigorous research techniques, such as randomized control trials, place greater emphasis on healthcare provider behaviors and clinical outcomes during family presence during pediatric resuscitation, and increase exploration into the education and training needs of healthcare providers who already currently manage family presence during pediatric resuscitation.
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 | 0.042 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".