The experiences of children with a cardiac transplant, their families and health care providers in the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had deleterious impacts on pediatric patients and families, as well as the healthcare providers who have attended to their care needs. METHODS: In this qualitative study, children with a cardiac transplant, as well as their families and healthcare providers were interviewed to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric care, as well as on patients' and their families' daily lives. Participants were recruited from a children's hospital in western Canada. Fifteen caregiving parents of transplanted children, 2 young patients, and 8 healthcare providers participated in interviews. RESULTS: Findings highlighted how families and their healthcare providers experienced pandemic-related shifts. Themes highlighted experiences, which entailed (1) initially hearing about the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) learning about their new reality; (3) adjusting to the pandemic; (4) adjusting to shifts in pediatric services; (5) evolving a view on the future, and (6) offering recommendations for cardiac care in a pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Study implications emphasize the need to critically reflect on, and advance, methods of helping young patients and their families in pandemic circumstances, and supporting healthcare providers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".