Understanding Parents’ Experiences When Caring for a Child With Functional Constipation: Interpretive Description Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric functional constipation (FC) is a common but serious medical condition. Despite significant effects on children, families, and the health care system, the condition is typically undertreated. Parents carry the primary responsibility for complex treatment programs; therefore, understanding their experiences and needs may offer a critical perspective toward improving clinical care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to understand and give voice to parents' experiences and information needs when caring for a child with FC. The ultimate objective is to build an evidence base suitable for creating a digital knowledge translation tool to better support parents caring for a child with FC. METHODS: This qualitative design used an interpretive description methodology to generate findings aimed at improving clinical care. One-on-one, in-depth interviews were completed either in person or through web-based teleconferencing to explore parents' perspectives. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently. RESULTS: Analysis of 16 interviews generated 4 major themes: living in the shadows; not taken seriously, with a subtheme of persevering and advocating; missing information and misinformation; and self-doubt and strained relationships. One minor theme of affirmative influences that foster resilience and hope was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Parents have unmet needs for support and information related to pediatric FC. To address gaps in current care provision, decision makers may consider interventions for clinicians, resources for parents, and shifting care models to better meet parents' 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 | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".