Parents' perspectives, information needs and healthcare preferences when consulting for their children with bronchiolitis: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Bronchiolitis is the leading cause of hospitalisation in infants, but parental experiences have not been well described. This study explored parents' experiences and asked them how they wanted to receive information. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in a tertiary paediatric hospital in Québec, Canada. It consisted of semi-structured interviews with 15 parents of 13 children with bronchiolitis. The interview guide was constructed by a multidisciplinary team that included a parent. The interviews, which were transcribed verbatim, were conducted until no new themes emerged. RESULTS: We interviewed eight mothers, three fathers and two couples for 22-70 minutes: six were carried out in person during the bronchiolitis episode, and seven were phone interviews after a median interval time of 107 days. Parents were very worried about their child's health and their lack of knowledge about bronchiolitis contributed to their anxiety. They found education resources informative, but expressed a strong need for support and reassurance from healthcare teams. The two groups provided similar feedback, regardless of when they were interviewed or whether their child was admitted. CONCLUSION: Although bronchiolitis is common in infancy, parental knowledge was low. Standardised educational tools were useful, but insufficient to meet all their needs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".