MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392108544 · doi:10.1111/hex.13994

‘It's quite a balancing act’: A qualitative study of parents' experiences and information needs related to the COVID‐19 pandemic

2024· article· en· W4392108544 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lisa Hartling, Sarah A Elliott, Kelsey S Wright, Lisa Knisley, Shannon D. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Expectations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaCochraneAlberta HealthUniversity of Alberta
FundersChildren's Hospital FoundationStollery Children’s Hospital FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsFocus groupThematic analysisInformation needsSocial distanceDistancingPandemicQualitative researchSocial mediaPsychologyPublic healthMedical educationPublic relationsMedicineNursingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)World Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, parents and children faced significant challenges as a result of prevention measures implemented to control the spread of the disease. Ensuring that families have access to essential health information is critical for improving health outcomes and adherence to public health recommendations. Understanding parents' experiences and information needs related to the pandemic and associated health measures (e.g., vaccination, mask wearing, social distancing, etc.) will inform the development and dissemination of resources tailored to parents' needs to support informed decision making. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study. Between September and November 2021, parents across Canada were recruited online via social media and community organisation newsletters and listservs to participate in focus groups via Zoom. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were coded and analysed using thematic analysis. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire before the focus groups (via SimpleSurveys). RESULTS: Sixty-seven parents participated in 12 focus groups between October and November 2021. In relation to experiences, parents felt they were (1) constantly trying to balance everything, and (2) trying to do their best with the information they had at the time when making decisions. Regarding information needs, parents reflected on (1) how difficult it was navigating copious amounts of changing information and finding credible sources to rely on, (2) the need for resources that were easily accessible, credible and in plain language and (3) the need for resources that were tailored to their needs to support them and their children make informed decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Trying to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 infection and adhere to public health recommendations, while balancing various factors (work, online learning, and social interactions) and navigating changing information, was overwhelming for many parents. Reflecting on their needs, parents suggested tailored resources that provided concise, credible information in plain language to help them make informed decisions and navigate conflicting information. These findings reveal important knowledge gaps and highlight areas that need to be addressed to support parents during the pandemic period and beyond. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of our established Paediatric Parent Advisory Group (P-PAG) were involved as collaborators throughout the planning (grant proposal), development and execution of the study. P-PAG members gave input on the design of the questionnaire, interview guide, recruitment strategy and interpretation of findings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.406 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth ExpectationsSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207