MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182704834 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054368

How do children and adolescents experience healthcare professionals? Scoping review and interpretive synthesis

2021· article· en· W3182704834 on OpenAlexafffund
Gail Davison, Martina Kelly, Richard Conn, Andrew Thompson, Tim Dornan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineHealth careQualitative researchConstruct (python library)MEDLINEActive listeningFocus groupMedical educationNursingPsychologyPsychotherapistSociologyPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Explore children's and adolescents' (CADs') lived experiences of healthcare professionals (HCPs). DESIGN: Scoping review methodology provided a six-step framework to, first, identify and organise existing evidence. Interpretive phenomenology provided methodological principles for, second, an interpretive synthesis of the life worlds of CADs receiving healthcare, as represented by verbatim accounts of their experiences. DATA SOURCES: Five key databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, and Web of Science), from inception through to January 2019, reference lists, and opportunistically identified publications. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Research articles containing direct first-person quotations by CADs (aged 0-18 years inclusive) describing how they experienced HCPs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Tabulation of study characteristics, contextual information, and verbatim extraction of all 'relevant' (as defined above) direct quotations. Analysis of basic scope of the evidence base. The research team worked reflexively and collaboratively to interpret the qualitative data and construct a synthesis of children's experiences. To consolidate and elaborate the interpretation, we held two focus groups with inpatient CADs in a children's hospital. RESULTS: 669 quotations from 99 studies described CADs' experiences of HCPs. Favourable experiences were of forming trusting relationships and being involved in healthcare discussions and decisions; less favourable experiences were of not relating to or being unable to trust HCPs and/or being excluded from conversations about them. HCPs fostered trusting relationships by being personable, wise, sincere and relatable. HCPs made CADs feel involved by including them in conversations, explaining medical information, and listening to CADs' wider needs and preferences. CONCLUSION: These findings strengthen the case for making CADs partners in healthcare despite their youth. We propose that a criterion for high-quality child-centred healthcare should be that HCPs communicate in ways that engender trust and involvement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.415 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations47
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207