The parental experience and perceptions of blenderized tube feeding for children with medical complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Parents of children with medical complexity are often expected to implement complicated plans of care, such as enteral tube feeding, to support the health of their child. Enteral feeding can have psychosocial implications for the parent, child, and family. Blenderized tube feeding (BTF) refers to the administration of pureed food and drinks through a feeding tube. Little is known regarding parents' experiences with BTF. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative study was to understand the lived experience of BTF from the parent's perspective. METHODS: This qualitative study was a grounded theory analysis utilizing semi-structured interviews of parents who provided at least 50% of their child's diet through BTF. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling from the Complex Care Program at a tertiary care paediatric centre. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was achieved. Themes were identified using constant comparative analysis of transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Parents (n=10) felt that BTF positively affected the experience of tube feeding and enhanced their child's health and wellbeing. Parents described BTF as a means of self-empowerment and a mechanism to normalize feeding and care for the entire family. Despite reporting BTF as more time consuming than formula feeding, all parents were satisfied with having made the change, and planned on continuing the diet. CONCLUSION: BTFs can improve the experience of tube feeding and positively address some of the negative psychosocial implications of enteral tube feeding, providing a sense of normalcy and control for parents caring for a child with medical complexity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".