Caregiver Perspectives on the Impact of Child Life Specialists during Pediatric Emergency Department Visits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To describe and compare caregiver perceptions of their emergency department (ED) experiences with and without child life specialist (CLS) involvement in their child’s overall care. A descriptive cross-sectional survey of caregivers of children 0-17 years at a tertiary care pediatric ED was completed from March to August 2021. Survey themes included perceived experience and satisfaction, and impact of child life specialists. A total of 179 caregivers completed the survey; mean age was 38.9 years (SD 8.4), and 72.6% (122/179) were mothers. Caregivers of children with CLS involvement (CLS+) ranked their overall experience (p= 0.021) and satisfaction (p= 0.009) higher than without CLS involvement (CLS -). More CLS+ caregivers ranked their experience (57.6%, 34/61) and their satisfaction (79.7%, 47/61) as excellent (5/5 Likert scale rating), compared to CLS- caregivers (37.7%, 40/115 and 56.6%, 60/115 respectively). CLS+ families were more likely to be offered non-pharmacologic interventions (e.g., iPad, sensory lights, toys) (98.4% vs 31.3%, p=0.003); they were also more likely to have a healthcare worker explore their feelings and fears (52.5% vs 27.0%, p=0.0008), help them prepare for a procedure or exam (73.8% vs 31.3%, p<0.0001), provide distraction techniques (70.5% vs 19.1%, p<0.0001), offer strategies to help coping (47.5% vs 14.8%, p<0.0001), or provide play opportunities (55.7% vs 9.6%, p<0.0001). CLS involvement in children’s ED care is associated with higher caregiver satisfaction and experience, beyond previously reported procedural distress management. Efforts to increase availability of CLSs should be made to better family experiences in the ED.
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 | 0.007 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".