L’expérience des parents endeuillés participant à des groupes de soutien après un deuil périnatal : une synthèse thématique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Support groups play an essential role in caring for parents experiencing perinatal death and bereavement. However, there is very little data on the effectiveness of these services on their well-being. To better understand the experience of bereaved parents using support group services, a qualitative systematic review was conducted using Thomas and Harden’s method. Seven databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycARTICLES, Cairn, Érudit, and Repère) were searched in October 2017 with an update in June 2021. A total of 16 studies were included and critically evaluated. The thematic synthesis made it possible to generate four analytical themes to describe parents’ experience according to the notion of spaces. The first theme refers to external space, i.e., the format of the support groups (virtual or face-to-face), and the other three themes reflect internal spaces, i.e., the functions of the groups (support, expression, and learning). This thematic synthesis confirms that participating in support groups benefits bereaved parents. It also offers possible solutions to improve the structure and accessibility of support groups.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".