MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177658103 · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1460

Reflections of parents of children with 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome on the experience of receiving psychiatric genetic counseling: ‘Awareness to Act’

2021· article· en· W3177658103 on OpenAlexafffund
Prescilla Carrion, Alicia Semaka, Rolan Batallones, Caitlin Slomp, Emily Morris, Angela Inglis, Marlene M. Moretti, Jehannine Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsPsychiatryFeelingMedicineMental healthMental illnessPopulationIntervention (counseling)Genetic counselingPublic healthStigma (botany)Clinical psychologyPsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22qDS) have a 25%-41% risk for a psychotic disorder. Although early intervention for psychiatric conditions leads to the best long-term outcomes, healthcare providers often provide inadequate information about these issues and psychiatric services are underused by this population. We conducted semi-structured interviews with parents of children with 22qDS a month after they received psychiatric genetic counseling (pGC), to evaluate outcomes and perceived value of pGC with respect to parents' needs. Using grounded theory, we generated a theoretical framework of the process of building parental awareness of psychiatric risks associated with 22qDS and protective and management strategies for mental health (MH). Parents described how after their child's diagnosis with 22qDS, a variety of barriers stalled their building awareness of psychiatric risk and protective/management strategies: dealing with the immediate symptoms of 22qDS; child's young age; parental fear and stigma; and missing MH guidance. These barriers led them to carry the burden of worrying over missing emerging psychiatric symptoms and the stress over advocating for their child's MH. Parents indicated pGC was beneficial in that led them to achieve an 'awareness to act,' feeling confident in being alert and equipped to protect and/or manage their child's MH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207