What do parents want from healthcare services? Reports of parents’ experiences with pediatric service delivery for their children with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Family-centred service (FCS) is an established approach for delivering services in children’s rehabilitation and healthcare. This article describes that parents continue to report mixed experiences with healthcare services for their children, as well as their ideas about what they need and want from these services. These findings will inform the development of an up-to-date measure of Family-Centred Service called Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC 2.0).Methods A qualitative descriptive study was conducted with parents, using focus groups and open-ended interviews. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis.Results Parents want care that is individualized, co-ordinated, easily accessible, and takes into account the entire family dynamic. They want service providers (SPs) to be informed and invested in their child’s care, and to provide parents with practical assistance. They also want to be treated with respect, caring and empathy, and to work together with SPs on the care plan. Novel components of care not identified in the original FCS guiding principles include: responsiveness to needs and mental health; effective communication (vs information giving); practical support (in addition to emotional and informational support); and availability and scheduling.Conclusions This article identifies components of healthcare that families find helpful and desirable.Implications for RehabilitationFamily-centred service (FCS) is an established approach for delivering services in children’s rehabilitation and healthcare.However, parents continue to experiences aspects of care that are not family-centred.Parents of children with disabilities identified components of care that they want from healthcare services.New components of care that go beyond what was identified in the original measure of FCS (MPOC) include: effective communication (vs information giving); practical support (in addition to emotional and informational support); and availability and scheduling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".