How Children's participation ought to be practiced: A preliminary ethical framework to optimise the participation of children with osteogenesis imperfecta in health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A three-phase ethnography was conducted at a paediatric orthopaedic hospital exploring the actual and desired participation of children with Osteogenesis Imperfecta in discussions, decisions and actions in the hospital and community. Phase I and Phase II revealed how childhood ethics are understood and practiced in the hospital using artmaking to engage children in discussions about their health-related experiences. Children expressed frustration, anger and disappointment when their desired level of participation in care was not actualized due to forgone opportunities for engagement by clinicians or lack of child-oriented health resources. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study (Phase III) was to specify how childhood ethics ought to be understood and practiced in the hospital by (1) convening hospital stakeholders in a collaborative setting to disseminate findings, identify ethical concerns and generate action steps; and (2) develop a preliminary ethical framework to optimise the participation of children with OI in health care. DESIGN: Focused ethnography reported using the SRQR checklist. METHODS: A focus group was conducted with 14 interdisciplinary hospital stakeholders. Data were analysed using qualitative, thematic analysis to understand primary ethical concerns and accompanying action steps. The findings were consolidated into a preliminary ethical framework and worksheet for clinicians. RESULTS: Four main factors impeding children's voices and desired participation were identified: legal and contextual factors; variations in clinicians' skills, practice and knowledge; difficulties incorporating alternative engagement methods into practice; and need for interprofessional collaboration. Five action steps were identified: Recognise, Elicit, Interpret, Act and Optimise. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The focus group and creation of clinician resources were important steps towards addressing the ethical concerns of children with OI, such as marginalisation or exclusion in their OI care. This study better prepares us to disseminate our findings on a larger scale and create ethical frameworks and resources to improve how vulnerable children's voices are heard, understood and acted upon in healthcare settings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".