MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388021083 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000989

“We Aren’t Meant to Go Through the Hardest Parts of Our Lives Alone”: Family Experience With Restricted PICU Presence During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2023· article· en· W4388021083 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Laurie A. Lee, Jennifer Foster, Dejana Nikitović, Daniel Garros, Molly J. Ryan, Neda Moghadam, Corey Slumkoski, Martha Walls, Janet Curran, Jamie A. Seabrook, Stacy Burgess, Laura Betts, Amanda Barclay, Karen Choong, Patrícia S. Fontela, Srinivas Murthy, Jessica Nicoll, Katie O’Hearn, Anupam Sehgal, Janice A. Tijssen

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsJaneway Children's Health and Rehabilitation CentreKingston Health Sciences CentreMcGill UniversityMcMaster Children's HospitalMcMaster UniversityVictoria General HospitalUniversity of VictoriaChildren’s Health Research InstituteChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioLawson Health Research InstituteIsland HealthWestern UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaStollery Children's HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreSurgical Specialties (Canada)Dalhousie UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsContext (archaeology)DistressDescriptive statisticsFamily memberPandemicMedicineFamily medicinePsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DemographyClinical psychologyDiseaseGeographySociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: PICUs across Canada restricted family presence (RFP) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic from allowing two or more family members to often only one family member at the bedside. The objective of this study was to describe the experiences and impact of RFP on families of critically ill children to inform future policy and practice. HYPOTHESIS: RFP policies negatively impacted families of PICU patients and caused moral distress. METHODS AND MODELS: National, cross-sectional, online, self-administered survey. Family members of children admitted to a Canadian PICU between March 2020 and February 2021 were invited to complete the survey. RFP-attributable distress was measured with a modified distress thermometer (0–10). Closed-ended questions were reported with descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression assessed factors associated with RFP-attributable distress. Open-ended questions were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Of 250 respondents who experienced RFP, 124 (49.6%) were restricted to one family member at the bedside. The median amount of distress that families attributed to RFP policies was 6 (range: 0–10). Families described isolation, removal of supports, and perception of trauma related to RFP. Most families (183, 73.2%) felt that policies were enforced in a way that made them feel valued by PICU clinicians, which was associated with less RFP-attributable distress. Differential impact was seen where families with lower household income indicated higher RFP-attributable distress score (2.35; 95% CI, 0.53–4.17; p = 0.03). Most respondents suggested that future policies should allow at least two family members at the bedside. INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Families of children admitted to PICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic described increased distress, trauma, and removal of supports due to RFP policies. Vulnerable families showed an increased odds of higher distress. Healthcare professionals played an important role in mitigating distress. Allowance of at least two family members at the bedside should be considered for future policy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.321
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.141 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ExplorationsSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207