How congenital Zika virus impacted my child’s functioning and disability: a Brazilian qualitative study guided by the ICF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Zika virus outbreak in Brazil has had devasting social, medical and financial consequences for families. Both researchers and clinicians are measuring longer-term outcomes to understand the impact of the Zika on child development, functioning and disability. Outcomes and tools used to measure them are very varied and we are unclear how meaningful they are to families and children. This study aimed to identify the parents' perspectives on relevant areas of functioning and disability that should be included as outcome measures for children with congenital Zika syndrome (CZS), as guided by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). METHODS: This qualitative study included parents or caregivers of children aged 0-5 years with confirmed CZS from two states in northeastern Brazil. Interviews were conducted using focus groups. Content mapping followed the WHO's ICF linking rules. Three raters analysed the content using NVivo V.11. RESULTS: Thirty-two caregivers participated in six focus groups, 88% were mothers with an average age of 30 years. Most children were male (59%) and all were level V (severe) to on the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS). Overall, 825 themes were mapped to 36 ICF categories. Although parents mentioned areas across all ICF domains, they reported that areas of mobility, eating and recreation were most relevant for them. In addition, environmental factors were highly identified as barriers, specifically services, policies and access to assistive devices. The most predominant facilitators within the environment were; immediate family support, kind relationships with therapists and support from the extended family. CONCLUSIONS: Although parents emphasised issues related to mobility, their greatest concerns involved environmental factors, such as access and quality of health and social services, systems and policies. These results reinforce the importance of including parents' perspectives when selecting or developing outcome measures for CZS.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".