MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3049644533

Barriers and Facilitators Associated with the Management of Aggressive and Disruptive Behaviour in Children: A Qualitative Study with Pediatricians.

2020· article· en· W3049644533 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Speranzini, Zahra Goodarzi, Lisa Casselman, Tamara Pringsheim

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsCollege & Association of Registered Nurses of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychosocialThematic analysisQualitative researchAnxietyPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Aggressive and disruptive behaviours are frequently observed in children. Short-term use of antipsychotics with monitoring for adverse effects is recommended when first-line interventions fail (e.g. psychosocial therapies and psychostimulants for ADHD). This study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to behavioural change for the management of aggressive and disruptive behaviours by pediatricians. METHODS: This was a qualitative study with twenty community-based pediatricians. An interview guide was developed to elicit beliefs associated with practice behaviours. We used thematic content analysis with the Theoretical Domains Framework to inform knowledge translation interventions, by helping to determine what behavioural barriers and facilitators to practice exist. Key domains which influenced behaviour were identified by evaluating the frequency of beliefs across interviews, conflicting beliefs, and the strength of beliefs impacting behaviour. RESULTS: Pediatricians described evaluating the impact of aggressive and disruptive behaviours, attempting to determine their cause, and using an approach that prioritized psychosocial therapies and psychostimulants. Pediatricians reported that antipsychotics were effective but that they experienced anxiety about harms, and there was a need to accept the adverse effects as a trade-off for improved function. Discontinuing antipsychotics was problematic. Despite awareness of antipsychotic-induced movement disorders and metabolic effects, there were limitations in physician skills, knowledge and resources and social influences that were a barrier to routine implementation of recommended monitoring procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies barriers and facilitators to evidence-based practice that can be used for knowledge translation interventions to ensure a high standard of care for children prescribed antipsychotics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder→French-language works237,207→