Priority Outcomes in Critically Ill Children: A Patient and Parent Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes in pediatric critical care research are typically selected by the researcher. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify outcomes prioritized by patients and their families following a critical illness and (2) to determine the overlap between patient-centered and researcher-selected study outcomes. METHODS: An exploratory descriptive qualitative study nested within a longitudinal cohort study conducted in 2 pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Participants were purposively sampled from the primary cohort to ensure adequate demographic representation. Qualitative descriptive approaches based on naturalistic observation were used to collect data and analyze results. Data were coded by using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Children and Youth (ICF-CY) framework. RESULTS: Twenty-one participants were interviewed a mean of 5.1 months after PICU discharge. Outcomes fell into 2 categories: patient-centered and family-centered. In the former, diagnosis, survival, and prognosis were key priorities during the acute critical illness. Once survival appears possible, functioning (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and factors that influence recovery (ie, rehabilitation, environment, and quality of life) are prioritized. Family-centered outcomes consisted of parents' psychosocial functioning and experience of care. Patient-centered outcomes were covered well by the selected study measures of functioning, but not by the clinical outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Functioning and quality of life are key patient-centered outcomes during recovery from critical illness. These are not well captured by end points typically used in PICU studies. These results justify the importance of patient- and family-centered outcomes in PICU research and a need to determine how these outcomes can be comprehensively measured.
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 | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".