MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097940435 · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1353

Rapid genome‐wide sequencing in a neonatal intensive care unit: A retrospective qualitative exploration of parental experiences

2020· article· en· W3097940435 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRegretThematic analysisNeonatal intensive care unitContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchMedicineFamily medicineExome sequencingIntensive careGenetic counselingPerceptionHarmDevelopmental psychologyNursingPediatricsPsychologySocial psychologyGeneticsIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genome-wide sequencing (GWS) is increasingly being used in neonatal intensive care units. While studies have explored its clinical utility, little is known about parental experiences with this testing post-return of results. We conducted a qualitative study, using an interpretive description framework and thematic analysis, to gain further insight into parents' perceptions of the value and utility of GWS for their infant. We sought to explore whether parents' perceptions differ if their child received a diagnosis or not, and whether their child is living or deceased. Semi-structured, telephone interviews were conducted with parents of infants who had rapid exome sequencing while in the neonatal intensive care unit at BC Women's Hospital in Vancouver, Canada. Interviews addressed perceived benefits and harms of GWS and included an evaluation of decisional regret. Parents of 27 probands were approached and 14 (52%; 13 mothers and 1 father) participated in interviews. On average, 26 months had elapsed from the time of results to the interview. Six themes were identified. Firstly, parents had a positive regard for GWS. The results of GWS helped provide context for their child's admission to the NICU, and all parents experienced relief following receiving the results. A diagnosis by GWS enabled parents to picture the future, form connections with other parents, and coordinate their child's care. Lastly, some parents experienced discomfort with the concept of a genetic diagnosis, and interestingly felt lack of a genomic diagnosis indicated a reduced severity of their infant's condition. Decisional regret post-results was found to be low. Our results highlight how parents cope with the results of GWS and suggest that a genetic counselor can have an important role in helping families understand and adjust to these results in the neonatal intensive care unit.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.262 · 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