Balancing pandemic public health restrictions and family support at the end of life: palliative care and bereavement experiences of parents whose child died during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on families of children with chronic life-limiting conditions who died during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this qualitative study, parents of a child (< 18 years) who died during the COVID-19 pandemic from an underlying chronic medical condition were interviewed to explore how the pandemic impacted end-of-life care and bereavement experiences. Parents of children followed by the pediatric palliative care service were recruited from a large children's hospital in eastern Canada. RESULTS: Twenty bereaved parents, consisting of 12 mothers and 8 fathers, participated in individual interviews between January and December 2021. Findings identified impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on children's end-of-life care, experiences in hospital and at home, and family bereavement processes and experiences. Most parents experienced substantial worry about their child's physical status and the additional risk of COVID-19 given her/his vulnerability. Parents also struggled to navigate public health protocols as they attended to their child's needs and their family's desire for engagement and support. Key facilitators that helped families cope included a strong network of formal and informal supports. CONCLUSION: Implications highlight the need to critically reflect on pandemic care in the context of co-occurring end-of-life processes. Findings amplify the need to balance necessary infection control practices with access to essential supports for families.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".