“Like Any Other Camp”: Experiences and lessons learned from an integrated day camp for children with heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Summer camps for children living with heart disease can have a profound impact on well-being. However, specialized camps often require extensive resources (i.e., 24-h medical staff supervision) and may be located in far remote settings. Integrating children with heart disease into mainstream day camps may address these barriers. The purpose of this study is to describe the experience of attending an integrated day camp from the perspectives of children with heart disease and their parents. DESIGN AND METHODS: This study used a qualitative descriptive design. Among 25 eligible families, 9 participated in interviews which were held 3 months to 2 years after attending an integrated camp (mean age of children at camp was 7.3 ± 2.25 years). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Many parents chose the integrated camp as their child's first summer camp experience, citing trust in the local division of Cardiology's approval of the camp activities as an important reason for enrolling. All participants agreed the integrated camp was a valued opportunity which should continue, although not all described positive camp experiences. Participants' descriptions of the integrated camp were organized into two main themes: 1) overall expectations of the camp and 2) important opportunities afforded by the camp experience. Partaking in a typical camp experience, connecting to local children with heart disease, adequate safety precautions and activity adaptations were specific expectations held by participants. Important opportunities included greater independence and confidence, navigating disclosure of their diagnosis to peers on their own terms, and more diverse social connections. Improving communication with parents to ensure expectations match camp objectives would have enhanced the experience. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Practitioners looking for an alternative to specialized camps for their patients with heart disease may use these results to guide the design and promotion of an integrated camp.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".