Keeping Hope Possible Toolkit: The Development and Evaluation of a Psychosocial Intervention for Parents of Infants, Children and Adolescents with Life Limiting and Life Threatening Illnesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, many infants and children are diagnosed with illnesses that impose limitations on their well-being and life course trajectory. Children's care becomes the central focus of family life. Inadequate support for parents is detrimental to their well-being and management of their child's care and support needs. METHODS: The second phase of this evaluation study followed a quasi-experimental crossover design to test a theory-based psychosocial intervention, the Keeping Hope Possible Toolkit. Fifty-nine participants were randomly assigned to one of two sequence groups, with measures of hope, feelings of control, distress, and uncertainty completed pre- and post-intervention, and at a three-month follow-up. Qualitative interviews sought to assess participant experiences with the intervention, along with acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS: Significant influence on parental distress was found, and the qualitative findings reveal benefits of the intervention for parental wellbeing. The intervention effectively offered practical and emotional support to diverse family caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-informed KHP intervention can be used by healthcare providers to intervene with family caregivers to support their dynamic emotions including hope, need to live in the moment and remember self, and social preferences. In doing so, parents' critical caregiving activities can be sustained and their child's health and wellbeing optimized.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".