Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) to guide feeding in neonatal and paediatric intensive care is widespread. However, this practice is not evidence based and may cause harm. As part of a feasibility study, we explored parent and practitioner views on the acceptability of a trial comparing GRV measurement or no GRV measurement. METHODS: A mixed-methods study involving interviews and focus groups with practitioners and interviews with parents with experience of tube feeding in neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care. A voting system recorded closed question responses during practitioner data collection, enabling the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We interviewed 31 parents and nine practitioners and ran five practitioner focus groups (n=42). Participants described how the research question was logical, and the intervention would not be invasive and potential benefits of not withholding the child's feeds. However, both groups held concerns about the potential risk of not measuring GRV, including delayed diagnosis of infection and gut problems, increased risk of vomiting into lungs and causing discomfort or pain. Parent's views on GRV measurement and consent decision making were influenced by their views on the importance of feeding in the ICU, their child's prognosis and associated comorbidities or complications. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of parents and practitioners viewed the proposed trial as acceptable. Potential concerns and preferences were identified that will need careful consideration to inform the development of the proposed trial protocol and staff training.
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 | 0.155 | 0.307 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".