British Congenital Cardiac Association Fetal Cardiology Standards: impact of Patient and Public involvement exercise on the development of clinical standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of a Patient and Public Involvement exercise on the development of British Congenital Cardiac Association Fetal Cardiology Standards 2021. DESIGN: Open-ended, semi-structured interviews were undertaken to inform the design of a study to improve the quality of parents' experiences during antenatal and perinatal care of their child with CHD. This Patient and Public Involvement exercise was used to inform the final version of the drafted 'Standards'. SETTING: One-on-one interviews with parents who responded to a request on the closed Facebook page of the user group "Little Hearts Matter": "Would you be interested in helping us to design a study about parents' experience on learning that their child had CHD"? PATIENTS: Parents of children with single ventricle CHD. RESULTS: Twenty-one parents (18 mothers, 3 fathers) participated. Parents responses were reported to have variably reinforced, augmented, and added specificity in the later stages of drafting to six of the seven subsections of Section C Information and Support for Parents including: "At the time of the Scan"; "Counselling following the identification of an abnormality"; "Written information/resources"; "Parent support"; "Communication with other teams and ongoing care"; and "Bereavement support". CONCLUSIONS: This Patient and Public Involvement exercise successfully informed the development of Standards after the initial drafting. It contributed to the establishment of face validity of the 'Standards', especially when consistent with what is reported in the literature. Further research is needed to explore approaches to involving and standardising Patient and Public Involvement in the development of clinical standards.
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 | 0.080 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".